Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 18 December 2006 (→‎Why is everything on the Wiki so complicated?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Organization

I am wondering if, expecially for some of the larger stub categories, it might be best to increase the level of hierachy. For example, The arts, then Music stubs, then Book stubs (fantasy, sf, etc.), etc. For example:

The arts

  • {{Music-stub}} This music...
    • {{Album-stub}} This album-related...
    • {{Band-stub}} This article on a band or other musical ensemble...
    • {{Composer-stub}} This article on a composer...
    • {{Musician-stub}} This article on a musician...
    • {{Song-stub}} This article about a specific song..
  • {{Book-stub}} This book-related...

BlankVerse ∅ 06:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. And book-stub would go under lit-stub. Make it so :) Grutness|hello? 07:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reorganised it - not quite as you suggested, but pretty close. Grutness|hello?

It looks great. The one other thing I would suggest is dividing up the two Place-related categories into continents or regions. BlankVerse ∅ 08:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Photo-request

Stumbled over this one, located in a Photo-request stub category. Is this a Stub template? Twthmoses 02:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not really, and it shouldn't be listed as such - it's like listdev, sectstub expand and the other templates for decent-sized articles that could do with a bit more added. Grutness|hello? 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This was recently created by User:Cwolfsheep (along with Category:Photo-request stubs), and is being put onto Wikipedia articles in the same place that a stub should be. There is already Template:Picneed (which is currently listed at WP:TFD) and Template:Reqimg (associated with Category:Articles that need pictures and Wikipedia:Requested pictures). It is better looking than Template:Reqimg, but there should only be one version of this template, and they all should be on the article's talk page instead of on the article's main page. BlankVerse ∅ 07:23, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it certainly shouldn't feed a stub category. Listdev doesn't, neither does whatever the "request for expansion" template is. This shouldn't either. I see you've added it to tfd, too (if you hadn't, I would have!) Grutness|hello? 11:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:SA-stub vs. Template:Sa-stub

Which one is the correct one? This page list SA-stub but that redirects to Sa-stub. The South Africa stubs category header also list SA-stub to be used, but Sa-stub is used far more. Twthmoses 13:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SA-stub is a redirect, but it's far more in line with the naming of the others. I dunno, perhaps Sa- should be used more, but personally I'd prefer it if that was the redirect. It'd be more useful if all the naming was consistent. Grutness|hello?

Template:Eris-stub

It seems to have survived a proposal to detelet it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, so where should it be added to the stub listing? Does it count as a religion? Remuel 02:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...or a myth? yeah, I suppose that's where it would go. Grutness|hello? 07:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Small Stub Counts and article name space

In the case of small stub counts, inclusion of non-article name space items (i.e. wikipedia and template name spaces) can push the count bin higher, such as from <25 to <50 for instance. I would recommend for low-count bins that only article name space items be included in the counts. Specific examples where this has changed the count bin outcome: {{Fem-stub}}, {{SoapChar}}.

Courtland 00:46, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Template:skateboarding-stub has no category

Just to let you know. Kappa 23:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Why do people do that? More work doing null edits on all its contents. Grutness|hello? 00:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Econ-stub

A new stub category was added to the list today under econ-stub called ... econ-stub. Same spelling. Same target. Just different description. Was this a typo, or ... ?

--TheParanoidOne 05:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was a typo - it was the new money stub - I copied and pasted the line but forgot to change the tl :) Grutness|hello? 06:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Heh. OK. That makes sense. :) --TheParanoidOne 12:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

more stub categories...

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say it, but I think we need quite a number more stub types, especially in history. I'd create them myself, but I don't know how, or if that's the sort of thing a non-admin can do. My suggestions:

  • Historical stubs by place, e.g. japan-hist-stub or US-hist-stub.
  • Bio stubs by place, e.g. spain-bio-stub or russia-bio-stub.
  • Historical biography stubs. I'm not sure exactly what to do about this, but I feel like people like Ben Franklin and Shakespeare, who've had actual biographies written about them shouldn't be in the same type of category as Minamoto no Noriyori whose historical significance is nearly nil. Is this really a "biography stub"? I'd rather there be a historical person stub, or something like that.
  • Stubs of historical documents, political speeches, and the like. They're not literature, per se, and they're not simply 'politics' or 'history'... It'd be a lot easier to expand on treaties, speeches, historical manuscripts & annals, if they had their own separate stub category.
  • Finally, rather than having stubs simply by Place, there needs to be culture stubs, e.g. Mexico-culture-stub for Quineanera, or Japan-culture-stub for bushido. If there's some way to distinguish between modern culture and traditional/historical culture as well, that'd be great. LordAmeth 21:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - to take these on at a time.
  • Separate area hist-stubs are a great idea. Africa, Japan, France, China all definitely need them (US already has one)
  • Similarly separate bio stubs - I've actually got three awaiting comment on the criteria page (note at the top of this page it says to propose stubs there, not here!))
  • Hist-bio-stub I'm pretty strongly against, for reasons explained elsewhere - (1) what is "historical"? When I was removing bio-stubs from the hist-stub category I found politicians who had left office within the last ten years listed as historical. (2) third variable - we already list people by nationality and occupation - adding a third variable (since it would be inevitable that we'd want to split it by hitorical period) just adds to the confusion. (3) we can probably assign most of these stubs quite well using the other two variables.
  • Historical documents at the moment sit quite comfortably in hist-stub (or according to whichever country they are, e.g., US-hist-stub). Hist-stub doesn't have a huge category - about 800 stubs IIRC, although both this category and battle-stub would be the two logical things to split off it if it became necessary later.
  • Culture-stub... depends on how big the simple country-stubs categories are. If, say, Mexico-stub became heavily populated, then working out whether a Mexico-culture-stub is viable would be a good thing to do. At the moment there are less than fifty stubs in there, though, so it's hardly practical. Grutness|hello? 01:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


What about a molecular biology stub, e.g. molbio-stub?

  • Pros: Would include new science fields such as proteomics, molecular medicine, molecular taxonomy, biotechnology. Proteomics articles, for example, cannot be appropriately classified according to present stub types.
  • Cons: Some redundancy with cellbio, genetics and biochem stub categories, while none of these could be replaced by it - Mendelian genetics is not molecular biology, for example.

Dysmorodrepanis 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish stub

I think a turkish stub should be created, not just a turkish geographical stub. - (Erebus555 13:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Possibly... suggest it over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (which is where it says to at the top of this page! :) Grutness|hello? 00:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlisted stub types

Can someone point me to a truly comprehensive list of stub types? I just used music-theory-stub, which wasn't listed, but it worked fine. (It's listed now because I just added it.) This leads me to believe there are plenty more stub types that aren't listed on the stub types page, including ones that could probably be quite helpful in the sorting process. Any help would be appreciated. --Jemiller226 19:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is discussion of some of the 'found' stub types. Some of these were incorrectly created (problems with the associated category) and some have problems with being too finely defined or not named per convention. Category:Stub categories does list all the stub categories that have been properly created, whether they are good ideas or not. RJFJR 19:20, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

What I should have said: you should probably stick to the list of stub-types until new ones have been discussed and added. RJFJR 19:29, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

They should all also be listed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types page. Any that aren't are not "approved" stubs or are very new and not yet added. I think someone slipped up with music-theory-stub, though, because I recall discussion of it a while back. Grutness|hello? 05:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category for protests?

I'm not sure whether this is the proper place to ask, but... Is there a category that fits articles on protests, demonstrations, activism, etc.? In the approved list I've only found "socio-stub", which seems too general. See for example rent strike, or the protest article itself. If there's no fitting type, what's the procedure to propose a new one? --Pablo D. Flores 13:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There isn't one currently (a special stub type, that is). The procedure for making a new one is to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria and propose a new stub type at the end of the current month's list of proposals (be warned, it's a fairly big page). There's generally about a week allowed for suggestions, counter-proposals, and the like, and if there aren't any objections by the end of the week then you can either make the template yourself (following the "how to" procedures on Wikipedia:Stub) or just wait for one of the regular stub-sorters to do i for you. By the way, since one of the usual criteria is having a lot of stubs it might be worth either looking for more stubs that can use the template or expanding the scope of the stub (say to include things like strikes and lockouts). Sounds like a rasonable proposal though. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Substubs

We seem to have given up the use of the sub-stub category, as precise stubs are replacing substubs on even one-line articles; should I stop using "substub"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's up to you, but anything you assign to substub will simply edited and moved again. The argument is simply that the more precise subcategories are more likely to see articles grow than using a generic substub classification, and personally at least, I'd love to see substubs disappear completely. Grutness|hello? 00:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine — it wasn't a complaint, I just need to know what I should do. I'll use stub templates in future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mel. Retiring sub-stub altogether will take people changing their stubbing-behavior over time and I hope most people are as helpful as you are in seeking advice on and cooperating in the matter. Courtland 02:04, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
I agree - cheers Mel. And cheers to Courtland too - I know we don't exactly see eye to eye on substubs, but debate has remained courteous, so thanks go to you too! Grutness...wha? 05:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Representation of redirects with *R

I propose an alteration to the format for representing redirects on the stub types listing. I've put an example of what I propose at the {{col-stub}} listing, which redirects to {{color-stub}} in the Art category.

The difference amounts to using a short form

versus a long form

The new format is meant to decrease the wording on the page and de-emphasize redirects versus "preferred" templates.

I'll not do any more damage :) until people have had a chance to speak their mind on this matter.

Regards, Courtland 16:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Like it - good idea SoM 21:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. It looks far neater on the page, and *R is explained at the top, too (which is where anyone unsure of it would look). Grutness...wha? 00:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

conversion complete I was hoping that there might be some size reduction in the page as well, but after completing the conversion (and deleting the old tally hidden comments) I find the page when from ~23 to ~22 Kb, only 1Kb in savings. Courtland 14:53, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

New signage to indicate WP:TFD activity: *D

I've introduced a new sign, *D to indicate that a template is listed on WP:TFD, in other words that it is formally under consideration for deletion. I think this might contribute to dissuading folks from using the stub template during the formal voting process at WP:TFD, an addition to the use of {{tfd}} on the template itself.

As usual, if this change does not sit well with folks it can disappear with nary a whimper.

Courtland 16:32, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Website-Stub Relocation

I was trying to stub-sort an article about a website, and I realized that the {{website-stub}} tag is only listed under "Broadcast Media." It seems to me that also listing it under "Computing and Telecommunications" would make sense. Or perhaps we need an {{Internet-stub}} tag to go there. MithrandirMage 21:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Putting it under both headers sounds reasonable, be bold! Joe D (t) 23:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked back over the history of the page and find that the first home of {{Website-stub}} was in "The Arts" and shortly thereafter it moved to "Broadcast Media", where it has been ever since. The actual parentage of the stub-category is Category:Computer stubs <= {{compu-stub}}. Considering the web is a broadcast medium, but isn't first thought of that way. I think that "internet-stub" was considered at one time, but was not made as it wasn't clear what would go in there specifically that would not go into either "website-stub" or another computer-related stub like "compu-network-stub". Right now, my gut says "website-stub" is the internet equivalent of "station-stub" for the airwaves. Therefore, I think it's ok to sit in "Broadcast Media", but should also sit as a child of {{compu-stub}} to reflect actual parentage. I'll place a reference there shortly. Courtland 23:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Commerce subheading?

{{Corp-stub}}, {{Ad-stub}}, {{Airline-stub}}, {{Bank-stub}} , {{Product-stub}}, {{Business-bio-stub}}, {{Publish-stub}}, {{Record-label-stub}}, {{Retail-stub}} ... I think we need a commerce subheading on the list. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. A heading without an associated category or template, right? Courtland 14:19, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Agreed. {{Econ-stub}} should probably be mentioned in this grouping as well. --Allen3 talk 16:42, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK - I'll do that (and no, no separate template or category). I've also moved the nobles to a separate heading under people, since I suspect this one might expand a bit. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tv-bio-stub

I've just moved this rom where it was listed as a child of actor-stub. The reason is that I'm sure quite a few Tv-bio-stubs are Television producers, executives, news anchors, writers, etc - it isn't just actors that are in there. Grutness...wha? 07:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please have {{Tv-bio-stub}} as a child of {{actor-stub}} in addition to other parentage? Though there are people labelled with the tv-bio stub that are not actors, there are many many that are. My understanding is that the category system is meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive in that it allows and encourages multiple parentage to create a network rather than a simple hierarchy. Courtland 14:17, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
I'd be fine with it being there as well, but it is a little misleading not having it separate. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take it, then, that you're looking at categories as exclusive rather than inclusive, yes? Courtland 02:37, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Um, you're gonna have to spell that one out a little more for me, sorry... :) Grutness...wha? 05:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil-stub placement under people-stubs

responding to removal of stub reference from page category

{{Brazil-stub}} is a child of {{bio-stub}} if you take a look at the category; therefore, it belongs where it is placed in my opinion, despite it's not following convention. Also .. why the exclamation point? It's not like I just broke a Ming vase or anything.

Following on from my opinion to some discussion of hierarchy organization ... Should the page reflect the actual parentage of stub templates and their categories or not? Further, should the page be descriptive or proscriptive, should it describe what the relationships are or should it be used to shape those relationships?

Courtland 13:03, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

A minor additional point ... I could have removed {{Brazil-stub}} from being a child of {{bio-stub}}, but I chose to leave it as it was, opting for a descriptive representation of the hierarchy on this page rather than a proscriptive one ... though I have changed some categorizations to fit what is on this page, so I've not been 100% consistent in being descriptive. I've added to the question above a second to reflect this. Also, I've not forgotten the roles that these pages and stubs in general play, so I don't need to be reminded of that once more :) . Courtland 14:13, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

The exclamation point was because it looked clearly incorrect in the hierarchy, and I still think it is clearly wrong there. If it's left there it seems to suggest two things - 1) that the only items that can go in it are biographies 9wrong), and 2) that there will never be a need for a separate brazil-bio-stub (also wrong). Since bio-stubs are likely to be the next thing to be broken out (as the largest stub category - four times the size of Category:Stub - I was simply "preparing the way" for the likelihood that they will be split in the same way that geography stubs were. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About language stubs and categories

I moved the language related stubs Lang-stub and Vocab-stub from miscellaneous to under Ling-stub (linguistics) following the example set in Astro-stub and other science stubs. This was because I didn't notice them while sorting and would've benefitted from this kind of tree order. Miscellaneous isn't really a good place for stubs that are related to eachother. Another possibility would be to create a language category on this page. Do people disagree with my move or can I move the stub categories also? Wipe 14:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. The shorter and more organised "Miscellaneous" is, the better. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ling-stub as a parent of Lang-stub also matches the regular article category relationship between Category:Linguistics and Category:Languages. I think it makes sense to try and keep the stub-category relationships consistent with those of standard article-categories.
One thing with respect to the Stub Types page ... what about expanding the "Literature and writing" section to "Literature, writing and linguistics"?
Courtland 02:56, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
Probably a good idea, although perhaps a better title would be "Language and literature". Grutness...wha? 11:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good alternative. Make it so. Courtland 02:06, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Done - should typ-stub be listed there, too? Grutness...wha? 07:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably so. Courtland 17:39, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

footnote functionality is broken across Wikipedia at present

The footnotes I've added are not working due to a global breakdown of the footnote template of unknown origin. Courtland 23:11, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

The {{ref}} and {{note}} footnote template functionality has been restored. Courtland 01:01, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Excel?

I wish that there was some sign of a slowdown in the creation of new topic stubs. I have been wanting to create an MS Excel version of this page as a resource and offline reference, but until there are signs of some stabilization of this list, I have been holding off. BlankVerse ∅ 09:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame you! I keep hoping to be able to sort through the backlog of recently discovered stubs and make sure they're all on the stub type page, but it's become a bit of a Frankenstein's monster. There are times I wish it was possible to have a one-month moratorium on the creation of any new stub types, just to give us all a chance to catch up. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is always the suggestion that I made about modifying the metastub and metapicstub templates that might make people more cautious about creating new stubs (or create really, really ugly new stubs for those not paying attention). I have been very tempted to Be Bold even though the proposal received little feedback. BlankVerse ∅ 12:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can appreciate your frustration, but it brings to mind something I've been thinking for a while, that a companion phrase to "Be Bold" should be "Don't Panic". I would hesitate to impose technical hurdles to the expression of persons' desire to add useful (in their opinion) descriptors to their work, which is essentially what creation of a stub template and category amounts to. My feeling is that it's ok to be perpetually not caught up with this activity because being comprehensive is a "nice to have" while being useful is an essential requirement, and there is no doubt that the work here is useful. There's a lot of ragged edge activity that would be suppressed in a more controlled environment, such as the ability to create pages that are <100 characters in length or the ability to quadruple-stub articles; technical fixes can be put in place to block practically any activity one desires to, but I would consider the cost to be measured in what it means to "contribute" and in most cases I think the cost of not blocking is less than the cost of blocking in regard to this metric. So, in summary, "Don't Panic" and consider the remit of the Project to be utility rather than comprehensiveness. Courtland 13:11, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
"Don't Panic". Yes, a good piece of advice. Maybe we should try to get that put on the Main Page in big, friendly letters ;)) Grutness...wha? 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original large stub listing page

The original stub listing page, [1], was gutted by User:Grm wnr today. Rather than wasting any more of my time on that page, which I'd been updating slowly, I just eliminated it altogether as a redirect here. It was useless after being gutted, so there is nothing lost in removing it altogether. Not happy with what happened, but, hey, why fight bold persons. Courtland 22:52, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been following the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Page_consolidation.2C_next_chapter, where the consensus was to reduce it to a minimum and add a note leading too the bigger list at WP:WSS/ST! Grutness...wha? 07:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are quite right (acknowledgement to cap). Courtland 17:37, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

New page for redirect information created

Following from a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_redirects. So far I've moved the footnotes that I'd created for a similar purpose from the stub types page, thereby cleaning the presentation a bit. I've put a link to this new page under the 'codes' section of the introduction for this page, but I've not added it to the main project page, though I have added it to the WikiProject category.

I hope you find this page useful. Suggestions would be helpful, up to and including "we really don't need this page". Thanks.

Courtland 16:45, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

This is an experimental draft page and I'm considering removing the transients from it and devoting it to only permanents. Courtland 10:18, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Stubtypes

Having just done one, a stub message for flora and fauna (or one apiece).

Have you seen the animal and plant stubs on the stub types page? Aren't they sufficient? --TheParanoidOne 17:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And before anyone starts worrying about Jackiespeel's original (unsigned) message, "just done one" does not mean "just created a template" :)! Grutness...wha? 02:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to page format - aiming for cleaner look with less text

Without further ado, here's a before and after look of what I'm thinking about based on the top of the Broadcast media section:

Example

Before

After

After 2 sets of suggestions

Explanation - effects

  1. Redirects would no longer be listed on the page but would be referenced to the "stub redirects" page that I put up as an experiment a while ago ... it woul need reworking and repurposing for this use.
  2. The name of the stub category is usually more informative than the title of the stub template, and often just as informative or more so than the excerpt from the template text that is currently included. Therefore, category titles would precede template titles (both wikilinked) and the text snippets would disappear.
  3. Sorting of items would be on Category title rather than on template text snippet
  4. counts, *D and *W labels would not be changed

This would take a significant amount of work (I do volunteer to do my part) but I think it would both compact and clarify the page.

Thoughts?

Courtland 16:57, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Looks like a vast improvement. When I created this page I never expected it to have as much information, or that the list would be this long. Anything that can make it look less busy and more usable is a good thing. I would suggest one slight change to your proposal though - I'd make it more like this...
...putting everything except the category in the brackets, and further downplaying the redirects. Do you still intend to keep information about children categories? Grutness...wha? 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good question ... I don't think so. However, in order not to lose much information we should maybe consider two "best practices"
  • Float stub sub-categories to the top by using the "| " indexing term
  • Make sure that the parent-child relationship shown on the Stub Types page is the most useful one, so that other relationships come naturally as secondary in importance
The first has two aspects: categorization by the stub template/category boilerplates and manual categorization. Looking at the boilerplate used in production of Category:Singapore broadcasting stubs it looks like the indexing is default (alphabetical). However, it seems that manual categorization to the redundant category (in this case Category:Broadcasting stubs) over-rides the template-driven categorization and allows addition of the "| " indexing term.
The second could require re-factoring the hierarchy, but I think the cost-benefit isn't high enough to do that retrospectively. Rather, I'd suggest that when new stub types are proposed or found that their categorization be considered; at present placement in the hierarchy is almost an afterthought, but can have side-effects on the user hunting for a stub type to work on who is using browsing as their navigation method ... i.e. a major reason for the existence of poly-hierarchical categorization in the first place.

Courtland 01:38, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make more use of the system currently used in the geographical section, where there are overall notices placed under the headings ("Many categories have children in..."). Grutness...wha? 04:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some notes: The "Category:" at the beginning of each line is distracting, so we should use piped links (like I did with the "C:"). And, since we are only reshuffling the information in this case, not adding anything new like it was when adding the categories, this could possibly be done pretty easily with some regexp magic. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a 3rd view above with input from Grutness and Grm_wnr.

  • Reshuffling information: We are only reshuffling information for those cases where the category name has already been added to the line. There is also In addition to information shuffling, there is information collapse (redirect lines go away) and deletion (the snippets of text from the templates would be going away as well). Perl regular expressions (the brand I use) would help but couldn't do it alone based on current page content.
  • About section x-references: the use of the section x-references could be increased, yes.

Courtland 18:20, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC) updated with strikeout as category additions now completed by Grm_wnr Courtland 00:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

  • Have a look at my sandbox, the regexp part and some of the other changes are implemented there. Needs more manual cleanup (the regexpes aren't perfect), which I won't do for a mockup, but at least 80% is done. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Nicely done, Grm_wnr. I'd say go ahead with implementation on the page and work out the manual things that remain as time permits ... 80% is good enough in this case, I believe. Courtland 14:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Heeey. Looks good. Do it. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deliferate misgake?

I note that every line now ends in a double parenthesis... any reason? Grutness...wha? 09:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was a undeliberate mistake, but easily fixed. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Operetta-stub

Another user has created a new stub type: Template:Operetta-stub. --BaronLarf 20:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

This was proposed on June 14th. As far as I can tell, there were no objections, and so it has been created. --TheParanoidOne 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"As at" versus "as of"

I changed all the "as at"s to "as of", but the change got reverted.

"As of" is a common English idiom meaning that a certain condition existed at a certain time. "As at" is a grammatically incorrect oddity I have never seen before today. Perhaps what is meant is simply "at", but the word "as" is redundant at best. If people prefer "at" over "as of" then I'm in favour of changing to that. --P3d0 July 1, 2005 02:45 (UTC)

"As at" is a perfectly acceptable idiomatic form meaning "at that time". The number of stubs shown is the number as it was at a particular time. "As of" means "since that time", and suggests that there have been no further additions to the list in that time, and is therefore incorrect. At on its own is simply ungrammatical. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
This sounds like a regional language variation at work. In my experience (primarily in the Southwestern US) "as of" is the preferred version with "as at" being unused. That said, I find no real difficulty understanding either variation. --Allen3 talk July 1, 2005 03:19 (UTC)
Grutness: I wasn't aware of the "as at" idiom. Perhaps "as at" and "as of" are equally valid here. (Dictionary.com hasn't heard of the former, but Google turns it up all over various uk and nz web sites.) Neither makes sense at face value -- the "as" is either redundant or nonsensical -- so their correctness relies on their idiomhood. I think in North America at least, the "as at" idiom is unknown and sounds like an error. Can we opt for the more neutral "on"? (As in "<200 on June 29"?) --P3d0 July 1, 2005 11:38 (UTC)

I will not accept "as at" as grammatically correct (and natural) English for the context in which the phrase is used. "As of" and "as on" are correct, readable, and generally understandable. The word at is more often used in reference to a place, such as "the forum was bustling with activity as at Rome". Sometimes, "as at" is used in reference to a time, but for a natural voice the phrase is similar to "...as at 10:00 PM on Saturday". "As" is also useless in phrases such as, "As at the time of this writing..." Notice that in both of the latter phrases as can be removed without changing the meaning of the statements. I encourage simplicity in literal composition. Adraeus 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my suggestion "below. Grutness...wha? 09:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "as at" is equivalent to "as of" in various parts of the world (it's used often in, for example, accounting). Perhaps it is unnatural in Americna English. Shawnc 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here in New Zealand we use pretty much the same English as the UK (with minor tweaks) - and "as at" means "at that time", whereas "as of" means "since that time". Since we haven't counted the stubs up since the times listed, "as of" is wrong in this part of the world, at least. However, as I said before, a better solution is to ditch the "as at/of" completely, and use something more like the suggestion I've put further down the page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#Shortening even further. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel any compelling reason to change the usage of "as at" on the page, and I am a speaker of American English, born in the Midwest. The notion that you, User:Adraeus, believe you will make any changes that withstand consensus (and the current format is a consensus solution, not that of a single person) by stating your case as "I will not accept XYZ" is patently absurd. Courtland 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tax stub

I've found many articles about taxes and sections in articles regarding taxes that I've often wanted to use a tax stub for tax related stubs. The Tax stub would fit under Government, law, and politics in the Law subsection. There is a need, even if its only temporary as the tax sections get expanded. - Inigmatus July 1, 4:00 UTC

Then propose it at WP:WSS/C, as it says at the top of the page. Personally, I don't see much use for it - tax matters are quite adequately covered by econ-stub. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Does *R mean what it is supposed to?

Looking at the top of the page, I see the instruction: *R indicates that a template redirects to its parent within the hierarchy So, in the listing, I see things like:

Medicine stubs (*R | {{Med-stub}}

Is this supposed to mean that {{Med-stub}} redirects to {{sci-stub}} (its parent)? That does not really seem to make sense or reflect what is actually seen on examining those stubs. Can someone explain what the *R there is supposed to mean?

Really, I am just trying to clear up stub categories that are orphaned as on Category:Orphaned categories without adding unapproved or deprecated ones to Category:Stub categories. But honestly I have to say that for those who do not spend lots of time on the lifecycle of stubs, the processes for the sanctioned creation, merger, redirection, and deletion is very complicated (see m:Instruction creep). In the absence of a more clear authority, I am taking Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types as the authority on which orphaned stub categories should exist, and therefore should be added to Category:Stub categories. Please give me any other advice you can here. Thanks. --Tabor 2 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Good point. Page organisation was changed recently. R* in this casenow means that there are further template codes that can be typed which redirect to med-stub, and that these redirects are listed on a separate page (which can be reached by clicking on the R*. I'll change the information at the top of the page. Grutness...wha? 2 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch and the fix. Courtland July 3, 2005 03:50 (UTC)
Regarding instruction creep ... I think that the processes are complicated because there are complications to stub templates that articles and categories don't share. For instance, every stub template has a corresponding category, unless the template is a redirect in which case it shouldn't have one. One source of orphaned categories are stub templates that once had categories then were converted to redirects and their originally associated category was not deleted, though it might have been cleared by restubbing leading to a movement of so-stubbed articles to a new category. The only orphaned stub categories that should exist are those that are associated with stub templates that are only used transiently (such as {{stub}}) and which might contain articles one day and none the next; and categories associated with templates that have been nominated and subsequently sentenced to deletion, in which case the category might lay empty for a bit after all articles bearing to the to-be-deleted template have all been restubbed and before administrative fingers move to erase the template and category from existence. Does that clarify anything, or is it all much muddier than it was before I waded into the stream? Courtland July 3, 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Family stubs

Are stub article about families (eg. political families) bio-stubs? 500LL July 5, 2005 12:35 (UTC)

I'd say yes, tentatively... I know the template says "a person", but these are still biographical articles. I'd like to hear other opinions on it, though... Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

New stub category recommendations

You should add the stub categories: cosmology, quantum physics, and astrophysics.

You can propose them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. --TheParanoidOne 6 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Intro update

After reading "please discuss all new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria" in the intro paragraph, I went there and spent a while before understanding that it was intended for new stub categories rather than stub pages. So I'm about to add the word 'categories' to clarify. Hv 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's actually brought in by the 'newstubs' template. I don't know how to update that. Hv 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the word "types" for a little more clarification. This word has been used rather than "categories" because a stub type encompases both a template and a category. --TheParanoidOne 20:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikipedia-stub}}

Is {{Wikipedia-stub}} for articles about Wikipedia (History of Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia...) or for [[Wikipedia: ]] pages? CG 08:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Good question - this one was not created by WP:WSS, but seemed useful enough to keep. The template says "For Wikipedia-related stubs", and seems to be being used for both articles in the article space about wikipedia and also for short pages in the Wikipedia space. Given the number of pages it's used on in total, I don't see too much problem with it being used for both. Stub categories as a whole as a bit of an anomaly as far as "article or wiki-space" are concerned, anyway, becaause they're primarily for the use of editors rather than readers, so having one category that crossed between the two spaces isn't likely to be a huge concern. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up page?

The page is getting fairly large (current 93 Kb). How about moving each "top level" section to a seperate sub-page and just provide links to them (along with some descriptive text and such) the main "stub types" page. Granted it might be a little over the top for some of the smaller sections, but for the sake of completenes I think they should all be moved rather than some kept on the main page while others are moved. Just a thought. --Sherool 00:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right that it is getting very long, but the whole point of creating the page was to have all the stubs listed on one page. So splitting it up kind of defeats the purpose. Perhaps someone can come up with other possible solutions? Grutness...wha? 07:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only solution I can think of would be using transclusion. Have seperate pages for all the top categories, and then have this page include those. But the only reason i'd see for doing that would be if people were running into collisions often when editing it. Unless some people run into problems viewing this page because it's so large? --Mairi 04:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's actually time to start pruning the list, somewhat. For example, {{netball-stub}}, {{kazakh-stub}} and {{inca-stub}} have all been at <10 for about 3 months (or more). I'm sure there are a number of others in the list that have very low counts that could easily be merged with a parent. --TheParanoidOne 05:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is. Of the three you name, note that Kazakh-stub would be covered by the currently proposed CAsia-stub. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Corrected less-than sign ( < to <, U+003C ) (see presedence of × vs x at monitor resolution).

...Not. So there's a minus sign and figure dash (and more... - ⁻ ₋ − ‒ – — ), but the less-than sign is the same as the html address character. Great, how will WP communicate its superiority now? {Seas 08:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Um, what? --TheParanoidOne 19:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it baffles me, too. In any case, the less-than sign is only part of an URL if it's in a string ending with a more-than sign - which none of these are. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Please get rid of the parentheses and the comma in the lists to make it much easier to copy and past stubs. Current listing:

  • Art stubs ({{Art-stub}}, <600 as at August 27)

Suggested versions:

  • Art stubs {{Art-stub}} <600 as at August 27
  • Art stubs - {{Art-stub}} - <600 as at August 27

What does everyone think? BlankVerse ∅ 19:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a number of new entries added to the list which have missed out the closing parenthesis. With the number of types of braces involved ( '[]', '{}' and '()') I can imagine that it would be easy to miss out the last one. This change therefore makes sense to me. I prefer the hyphened one myself, as it gives a nice clear seperation of the three items of information. --TheParanoidOne 19:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I frequently copy tags from the list, and almost always have to manually delete the extra comma and paren, as they are typically automatically included in the highlighting, and this adds time and a possible odd result to teh stub-sorting process. DES (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a few that are missing the openning parenthesis. I like the last one with the hyphens best, as it does seperate the information nicely. --Mairi 22:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the hyphens, too - a further possibility is this:

  • Art stubs: {{Art-stub}}, <600 as at August 27

Whichever, the version with the parentheses is messy, so you're right that it should go. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support dropping both comma and bracket. Alai 05:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, browsers such as internet explorer have a problem with copying specific mounds of text, so the parentheses and commas are left in. Drop them. Something like Category: Bio-stubs works well too. Xhin 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening even further

Why not just:

Grutness...wha? 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That could be cleaned up even further if we used a template for the category and template links, and the status and date of last status change. For a large database-like project, we shouldn't even be dealing with asterisks, brackets, colons, dashes, parentheses, or phrases (i.e., "as at", "as of", "as on") in each entry.
Example: {{ctl|Art-stub|600|27 August 2005}}
Adraeus 10:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, but appearance on the page is also important, and that's what I'm trying to suggest a change in here. It could be done by template, but that would need us to change the way we count stubs - I can't see any easy way of using the current method of counting up to 800 stubs in buckets and then counting by pages above that (which is very useful for spotting which categories need splitting). In any case, my suggestion is more a way around the problems with "as at", "as on", and "as of", which seem to be subject to regional differences and add unnecessary text to the page. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

geographical place related vs general place related

What is the distinction between the general place related categories, and the geographical categories. For example, US-stub vs US-geo-stub. I gather that rivers, hills, mountains, and other geographical features would be under geography, unless there is another more specific category, but what about town and cities, and settlements in general. Silverfish 12:53, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

They would go into the geo-stub. Note that US-stub is not about places, as you have assumed (based on your "general place related"). Have a look through Category:United States stubs to see what kind of things have been placed there. --TheParanoidOne 13:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. By place-related I just meant related to a particular area, such as US, UK, etc. Silverfish 14:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Time to update?

There are a lot of new stub sub-categories in their respective categories. For large pages such as Category: Bio-stubs, wouldn't it be better to have a listing of the sub-categories as well? Xhin 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand this. All the official subcategories are listed. If there are any which aren't then they're ones that haven't gone through ddue process and haven't been discovered yet by WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to list them on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, like how some, but not all stub categories are listed there. Xhin 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, all the official ones are listed there. If there are any which aren't then they're ones that haven't gone through due process and haven't been discovered yet by WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And if you know any that aren't on there, please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries (assuming they're not already listed there). --Mairi 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland-bio-stub

Why isn't {{Switzerland-bio-stub}} listed? It has 39 in it. It's... Thelb4! 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are quite a few categories not listed! It's... Thelb4! 16:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not listed because it wasn't proposed. However, it's already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. If you know of any other stub types that aren't listed here, on WP:WSS/P or the Discoveries page, please list them on the Discoveries page. --Mairi 22:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure is to list things on the "Discoveries" page if they havn't been officially cleared by WP:WSS. That gives the project an opportunity to debate them (which should have happened before they were created). From there, one of three things happens: they can be logged as accepted and added to the official list, amended or redirected to fit in better with the stub hierarchy, or sent to WP:SFD for a vote on deletion. In the case of Switzerland-bio-stub it will almost certainly be accepted, and sooner or later will be logged and added to the tree - probably when the Discoveries page is next archived. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle stub

Hey folks. Isn't there a way to come up with the top level Template:Vehicle-stub real fast and then work on refining that into its sub-stub templates as things get sorted out? That way I could replace the embarassing Template:Van-stub that now resides at Tank truck. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 21:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on stub

I'm working on some articles dealing with so-called demogroups and a lot of the articles about these groups are currently very sparse. Unfortunately, there's not a suitable stub-category for these groups and people doing stub sorting keep putting them in all kinds of different categories, such as org-stub and bio-compu-stub. Is it a good idea to create something like a computer culture category for stubs? Let's say compu-cult-stub for instance? This could also house all kinds of other hacker/computing culture stuff. Nmrd 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals where it belongs. --Alynna 15:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race Horces

Do stub bios of race horses go under animal stub, sports stub, or something completely different?

Chemturion 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Horseracing-stub}} would probably be what you're looking for. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A case could be made for a triple stubbing as {{horseracing-stub}}, {{sportbio-stub}}, and {{mammal-stub}}. I know that I personally have been double stubbing animal actors with {{actor-stub}} and {{animal-stub}} (using sub types as appropriate). Proposing additional sub types of {{sportbio-stub}} is on my to do list nce I finish my cyrremt efforts with history stubs. Caerwine 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has attention been given to whether this practice of referring (in the context of stub-sorting) to "bios" of animals creates confusion about what i believe is clear re WPrj Bio (and what i know is clear re List of people by name -- which the project treats, along w/ Category:People, as fundamental), that only non-fictional humans need apply?
--Jerzy•t 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's abit off-topic, but Category:Fictional characters has Category:People by status as a parent... Mairi 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music stubs hierarchy

Category:Music biography stubs appears to be part of the Music stubs hierarchy, yet it is not listed in WP:WSS/ST. It has no template, no articles and is the parent of Musical group stubs (parent should be Musician_stubs), Musician stubs (parent should be Music_stubs) and Composers stubs (parent should be Musician_stubs). Do we need it? --Bruce1ee 07:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not already listed at WP:WSS/D, note it there. At a glance, it appears that there was a template that was redirected to {{musician-stub}}... --Alynna 21:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed it at WP:WSS/D. --Bruce1ee 08:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Stub Naming

moved from the top of the page

I was replacing the Daniel Emilforkpage's stub. He was born in chile, but acted in France (and was of Russian and Jewish acsent). My problem is, are actor supposed to be classified by where they born (so he would be placed under Actor stub) or where he acted (so the French actor stub will be used). Right now he is under Actor Stub.

Is he better known as a Frenchman or as a Chilean? Use whichever the answer is. Double-stubbing would also be possible if he's known as both. I wouldn't bother with his ancestral links though, for the purposes of stub sorting. Russell Crowe was born in New Zealand and works in the US - but he's usually thought of as either Australian or a New Zealander, so double stubbing with Australia and NZ would be right for him. Yul Brynner was born in Mongolia (IIRC), but was known as an American actor, so US-stub would work for him. Ah-nold would get both Austria and US (and would also get California-politician-stub)... and so on. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing stub/Marketing bio stub?

Why does {{marketing-stub}} claim to be about biographical articles? Is that really what it's for, and if so, why not call it {{marketing-bio-stub}}? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was only recently changed to specify biographies only, most of the articles it's used on aren't biographies. I've changed it back to any articles about marketing. --Mairi 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US military history

Can stub-types be in two categories? If so, US military history stubs should listed under Military History stubs as well as US History stubs.--ragesoss 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes, but I note that there is a well-populated {{US-mil-hist-stub}} that would take care of both categories in a single stub. That stub is not listed among the Stub Types, however. --EncycloPetey 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learning related category

Could we organise the pages so that we result in 'learning subjects'. Examples of Categories and Sub Cats:

  • Mathematical
    • Formulae
    • Mathematicians
      • >0 AD
      • 0-249 AD
      • 250-499 AD
      • 500-749 AD
      • 750-999 AD
      • 1000-1199 AD
      • 1200-1399 AD
      • 1400-1599 AD
      • 1600-1699 AD
      • 1700-1799 AD
      • 1800-1849 AD
      • 1850-1899 AD
      • 1900-1924 AD
      • 1925-1949 AD
      • 1950-1974 AD
      • 1975-1999 AD
      • 2000-Present AD
    • Terms
  • Economics
    • Terms
      • Theories

This I would have liked now, seeing as it is a bit difficult in finding such info - especially as I am studing economics subject in school and would like to edit/assign stubs in the process. Paddy 14:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be appropriate for the main categories, but it wouldn't make any sense to do so for stub categories. There may be only one or two stubs for some of the categories you've suggested above, which would make them useless to editors. I think you mak have this page confused with a compete list of all categories. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

counting # of articles in each stub category

Is there any better way than manually updating it? As it is now it is slow and some sections are 2 months out of date. (I have tried to work on those in particular). Is there an easier way than what is described on this page? Many thanks.

Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. --TheParanoidOne 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't a bot be rigged up for that kind of thing? It's not really complicated. Chris M. 06:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose? --TheParanoidOne 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well realistically the counting process for the stubs isn't really complicated, but it's really time consuming and repetative. The reason things aren't updated is because there aren't people to count them over and over. I'm going to make a copy of the stub page and then see if I can make a bot to run through it and get a decent count of the number of articles. The standard procedure is the number of articles unless it's 8 pages or more, then you list the pages, right? Chris M. 02:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The standard procedure (in theory) is what it says at top of the page: bins for <10, <25, <50, <100, <200 (<1 page), <300, ..(a bin for each 100).. , <800, and then number of pages after that. Mairi 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt at creating something to read through the pages can to a halt when I found myself unable to automate my program to read the contents of a web browser. The option in Visual Basic just doesn't seem to be there. Very odd. I'll keep looking into it though, because I'm sure a bot would be useful for something like this. Chris M. 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could try pywikipediabot framework, as then you wouldn't have to write most the code for parsing categories and such. Assuming you know or feel like learning python :) Mairi 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight reorganisation (no pun intended)

I've slightly reorganised the "Miscellaneous" section, giving the organisations their own subheading. I've also removed Category:Occult stubs from being listed under Category:Magic (illusion) stubs, since it didn't belong there. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

classification of "knot stubs" cat

{{Knot-stub}} should not really be listed under mathematics; these articles are about real-world knots that you tie in a rope, not the mathematical discipline of knot theory. Probably they should go under "miscellaneous", though I suppose an argument could be made for "technology".

I've made it so Category:Knot stubs is no longer a subcat of Category:Mathematics stubs (that's the more important change; without it, knot articles could show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity and related pages, which would be bad). --Trovatore 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sect-Stub Alert

There are almost 2000 (ten pages of up to 200) articles with the sect-stub template. It would be nice if people could look through the list and unstubbify some articles, especially if a person has knowledge of the subject. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sect-stubs aren't really stubs, and aren't dealt with by WP:WSS. They're actually a variety of {{expansion}} template. In a perfect world, they'd have their own wikiproject dealing with them (actually, in a perfect world, they and stubs would all have been exopanded into full articles :) Grutness...wha? 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor-stub

Could someone make an inventor-stub template? I've seen several uses for one. I'm really bad at making stub templates, too. Jfingers88 04:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place to propose new stubs is at WP:WSS/P, but in this case, this one has been proposed before and turned down, I'm fairly sure. The point is that most inventors can already be covered by other stubs like engineer-stub, scientist-stub and/or chemist-stub, so there's not really any need for a separate template for inventors. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Next time, I'll be sure to put my suggestions of the proposal page. Thanks. Jfingers88 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note about stub statistics

See Wikipedia_talk:Statistics#Stub_statistics. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gnome (Bot) is capible of automatically counting the number of articles in each category. The only problem is figuring out how to display the data to the causual user!Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I have data on the first 10 automaticallyEagle (talk) (desk)

Semi-automated update

I've done a semi-automated update of the list using this list. If I screwed up and major fixes are needed, please let me know. Conscious 07:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! And the counts are now formatted consistently. --Bruce1ee 08:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you still like me to use Gnome (Bot), It will do the same thing automatically, and put the counts into the proper bins.Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. please don't tell me I've just coded for two hours for nothing. (added code to existing bot)
Wikipedia_talk:Statistics#Stub_statistics (you have to go down a bit, as this has been underway for a bit.)Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated update is possible

I tested my code, (for half of the page) and it works. I suggest that I run these every saterday, and do away with manual edits.!!!!(about time!!!)User:Gnome (Bot) is who will be doing the 1 edit.Eagle (talk) (desk)

  • User:Conscious, are you ok with letting me finish what I started.(as I said than manual updates become a thing of the past)Eagle (talk) (desk)
    • Also, the program gets the list of categories right off of this page, ensureing that the infomation is up to date as possible.Eagle (talk) (desk) 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding the Categories to be counted and adding <

The Categories under section 1.6 are not bolded, I am going to do so to allow my program mentioned above to properly match up the categories with the counts.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am adding the < symbol, agian to help the program to these 5 articles.(tells it where the end of the line is). Helps me avoid adding a number to the end of a number!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, But for the purposes of my program I am going to have to add the < sign to the articles with the count in the number of pages also. (This will be fixed on the first running of my program, Then It will be all numbers, with the big numbers(in the same bins) will be bolded but will be numbers of articles not pages. Eagle (talk) (desk)

  • This follows the same binning proccess that is in place now.Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone if someone want to do this for me, I would appreciate it greatly. If not It will be done by tommarow night, so the program can runEagle (talk) (desk) 22:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chlid---Children---Other Children

Forget what is below Only one of these is going to be kept by my bot, For now I am going to replace all of the others with Children.Eagle (talk) (desk)

The reason for this is I must write code to tell my bot to keep these lines in the order they are in, with out attaching a number at the end. (The formatting must be consistant at the beginning and at the end of the lines. This is for a purely proggramtic point of view.Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the bot settles in, I may add code to allow lines to start with other things.Eagle (talk) (desk)

Forget what is above

I found that the < small > and <\small> tags indicate the start and end of these lines.Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting is finally readable to [[User: Gnome (Bot}

Uh...As the header says, the formatting of this page is done.

Article Counts will soon be automated as a result we need to change the top of the page, as manual counts should no longer be needed.(Thats a good thing)Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Article counts

<strike.User:Gnome (Bot) is fully operational. Stuff about Gnome can be found above. Eagle (talk) (desk)

We no longer need manual counts, and we need to reformat the top of the page to reflect that fact.Eagle (talk) (desk)
Gnome is running now.Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A sample of what the bot does can be found at User:Eagle_101/Gnome/Sample

The bot has run into some bugs, most notable the redlink bug. As I am going to be gone from wikipedia for 1-2 weeks, I will be unable to fix it untill than.Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important note to admins deleting stub types

Due to the automated counting of stubs within categories, it is vitally important that stub types are removed from the stub type list WP:WSS/ST when they are deleted! Don't leave red links on WP:WSS/ST! If Gnome Bot is running, please, please admins DONT delete categories, as the bot has no way of knowing that the category is gone untill it is forced to stop.Than the whole count is not good, for now.(Later the bot will be able to take a little more abuse)

Reason

To alert admins to hold off deleting a category. If they don't the bot goes into a grinding halt, and all of the data is basically useless.I am working to fix this, but I have put in over 7 hours on this and I have another life:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SC?

Why have we "gained" this as an additional shortcut? What does it it actually stand for, anyway? Wouldn't WP:ST be a bit more logical? Alai 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume WikiProject Stub Counting. I really don't know, All I Know is that it is the shortest option to type.:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 07:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ST will probably find you somewhere in the Star Trek Wikiproject. I only found out about WP:SC a couple of days ago when User:Eagle101 said that I'd changed something at WP:SC. I almost replied that I'd never been there, but decided to check the link before doing so. WP:SC is actually an ancient redirect to Wikipedia:Stub categories, a long defunct page, and it looks like we inherited it when that page was subsumed in WP:WSS/ST in the middle of 2005. I wouldn't mind losing it, but it seems to be on a lot of talk pages. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good theory on 'Trek, but actually it's currently a defunct redirect to the "statistics" special page. If we can swipe that, or some other preferable 2LA, perhaps we could "deprecate" WP:SC, without immediately abolishing it. If not, no big deal... Alai 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weird numbers (boldface = x 1000 ?)

I noticed that for e.g. { { mathematician-stub } } it is written < 5 pages, while there are >>500 pages in this category. Then I noticed that it's the same for many other categories, especially with subcategories.

Does the bodface mean "times 1000" ? or does it mean something else ? I didn't find information on that on this articles's page. — MFH:Talk 17:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your figures. The category has 971 stubs (there's 200 on a full page, so it means 5x200). The boldface simply means that the category is so big that it is worth considering splitting it in smaller segments, and in this case, the next full page will become the fifth, hence the "<5 pages". The boldface should basically be seen as an indicator to watch the category for potential problems with size. Valentinian (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The numbering scheme used is explained at the top of the stub types page. --TheParanoidOne 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent use for Gnome (Bot)

I am sorry as of this time I am going to program Gnome bot to aid in the clean-up backlog...more info on WP:CU and Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal. Right now the matter is absolutly urgent...I promise I will return and automate the stub counting as well, but automated stub counting is not as near as urgent as the Cleanup Backlog. Alba is the one who drafted me to aid him in fighting the backlog.

Agian if someone else does not do it by june...I will return...Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical

There should to be a stub for a musical theatre production that is not a film. Dracula Spectacula for example.
Perhaps
{{musical-stub}} This article about a musical theatre production... Ω 07:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose it at WP:WSS/P, perhaps with {{Theat-stub}} as its parent – but read the proposing new stubs procedure. --Bruce1ee 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[US-]engineer-stub in wrong place

While looking for {{engineering-stub}}, I noticed that {{engineer-stub}} and {{US-engineer-stub}} are currently listed under 2.13.2 Other technology. Shouldn't they go under People by occupation instead? (As a relative newbie, I'm not feeling WP:BOLD enough to make this change unilaterally.)

BTW, I'm using {{Tech-stub}} on engineering-related stubs such as Calibrated orifice. If this is wrong, please let me know.

—Chris Chittleborough 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music Groups

There seems to be no stub type appropriate to classical music groups. There are a fair number of stubs for orchestras or chamber music groups that want classifying. SteinbDJ 16:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, there were no instructions at the top of the list about new stub types - there are now. To propose a new stub type, go to WP:WSS/P and follow the instructions at the top of the page. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars

{{StarWars-stub}} has existed for a long time and is in many articles yet it isn't in the list of stub types. Could someone add it since I don't know this WikiProjects rules? Jedi6-(need help?) 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there. Since Star Wars is primarily a film series, it's listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#theatre and film. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed it when I was looking. Jedi6-(need help?) 06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition goes where?

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

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

Music stubs

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

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

Page cleanup

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

I reverted it (before I found this note). We've already got enough people confusing stub categories with non-stub categories. Removing the word "stubs" from all the category listings will only confuse them still more. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the inclusion of the word stubs in all the section headers and the fact that there's a {{tl|stubtype}} on every line make it obvious enough? I know a lot of people don't take the time to pay attention to what they're looking at, but removing "stubs" from everything makes the page a lot more readable, in my opinion. --Jonathan Kovaciny 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, if people were getting it wrong even with all the categories listed as "xxx stubs", I don't think reducing the number of times the word is mentioned is going to make it any clearer. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat piping

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

It's a shame that the software places the full category name after the bar, if you just leave that empty. There seems to be no reason for it. --TheParanoidOne 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for dredging up an old topic, but I was wondering if it would save space in the edit window if we did leave the piping blank for most things, such as:
    • [[:Category:Art stubs|Lace stubs]] --> [[:Category:Art stubs|]]
    • [[:Category:Literature stubs|Literature stubs]] --> [[:Category:Literature stubs|]]

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

The part after the pipe is inserted by the mediawiki software. ie. If you were to enter [[:Category:Some category|]], next time you edit that section it will show [[:Category:Some category|Some category]]. --TheParanoidOne 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just noticed that I already said that. Oops. I fail at reading. --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparantly I also fail at reading... I didn't know that happened. Thanks for pointing it out (twice)! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pills?

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

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

Short Stories

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

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

United Arab Emirates stubs

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

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

Railway stations

Should railway stations be listed here under Buildings and Structures/By building use or type or under Transport/Rail? They're currently listed (incompletely) under both. --CComMack (t&#149;c) 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up-to-date as of July 31

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

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

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

Up-to-date as of Aug 31

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

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

Split Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

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

Agreed. I'm using Opera on a rather new computer. Although it doesn't crash, it becomes quite sluggish and moreover the wikipedia server needs 16 seconds before it starts sending the page, while 1-2 seconds is normal for other pages. I would suggest putting each section into a subpage, with just plain-text keywords on this page to facilitate searching. Han-Kwang 16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP guideline "Be bold" I have reorganised the page a bit: section 2 is now transcluded from subpages and I made a plain-text index page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types index. As of now you won't notice much difference on the Stub types page, but whoever updates the "<200 links as of October 14" remarks will need to adapt their software a bit. I think that it would be even better to move the fully hyperlinked list to a new location and put the text-only list in its place. Whenever I add a stub category to an article I'm annoyed by the slow loading of this page. Han-Kwang 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you are my HERO!--aceslead 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm sorry for being a bit too bold, but I don't think it is necessary to start screaming like that. I did consider creating a sandbox version as a proposal, but since it doesn't change the appearance of the page and prevents me from having to do this again in case the proposal is accepted, this seemed a better solution to me. Han-Kwang 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the screaming... but perhaps if you'd checked this page history you'd have noticed that similar changes have been soundly rejected in the past. It may seem like a better solution to you, but it is not regarded as such by most of the people who regularly use the page. And as you said, this page is regularly updated by bot - to change it without proposing such a change causes quite a bit of havoc. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is long, but this is better than having to watch an unknown number of pages. If we split the list into more pages we might soon end up with ten or so pages to update and keep free for vandalism (and to check for duplicate entries which would be a real pain.) In some cases it is better to keep all eggs in one basket and keep a good look on that basket. We should keep the current system. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is continued on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Han-Kwang 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks--aceslead 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disaster stub

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

Individual disasters, being historic events, get marked with whatever the appropriate history stub is (usually by location). Thus Aberfan, for example, would get a UK-hist-stub, and the Tangshan earthquake would get a China-hist-stub. Note that hurricanes do have a separate stub, so disasters connected with hurricanes (e.g., New Orleans vs Katrina) can use hurricane-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about an airplane crash, particularly one in the ocean, where there is no particular country associated with the event? --Swpb 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{Aviation-stub}} or one of its subtypes should cover that. BTW, the Disaster stub is worded in that way because it's been made in association with a WikiProject on disaster management. It might well be worth having separate stub types for different types of disaster, though... proposing some at WP:WSS/P might be a reasonable idea. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State location stubs

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

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

Barbershop quartet stubs

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

Can this stub be reinstated? Dullfig 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should familiarize yourself with the goals of the stub-sorting project. Having or not having a stub type is not a judgment on the importance of the topic, but only on the effectiveness of the type in getting the articles filled out so that they're no longer stubs. Stub status is supposed to be temporary, and no one, as far as I know, is opposed to having a permanent category for barbershop quartets and barbershop choruses. --Trovatore 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (who sang with the Peninsulaires in the mid-80s).[reply]

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

Actually, I did not know there was an active discusion. Thanks, I will check it out. Dullfig 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, that discussion. Never mind, carry on :-) Dullfig 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protein stub

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

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

This List Is Too Big

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

I personally agree, but the project members prefer everything in one page for the sake of maintenance. I've built a bot to create derived pages, but with surprisingly little feedback. See [6]. Han-Kwang 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some feedback: at first glance, it wasn't what I was expecting. I think the request for a top-level list might be more in line with my expectations:
  • Culture
  • Education
  • Commerce
  • Government-law-and-politics
  • Leisure
  • Sports
  • Religion-mythology-faiths-beliefs
  • Geographical
  • History
  • People
  • Science
  • Technology
  • Transport
  • Military and Weaponry
  • Organizations
  • Miscellaneous
I guess these would best be split as subpages of the Stub Types article. How many stub types do we need, anyway? Xaxafrad 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess I should've read a bit of the talk page before adding a whole new section.... Xaxafrad 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This has been suggested and rejected many times before. Just keeping one list up to date is bad enough, maintaining 10 will be impossible. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long load time

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

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

Why is everything on the Wiki so complicated?

<rant mode> ... I just wanted to say "page could use some work", added {{stub}} to it, and find myself pointed to 21 pages of wiki-technobabble to wade through. Eventually wended my way here. Here's my article: Michael Harvey (lettering artist). Do you really think flagging it as a "British bio stub" will help attract an expert in Michael Harvey's work? Surely if it's got to be sub-stubbed or whatever the proper wiki term is, then it should be an art or calligraphy or typography stub. The man has carved a memorial in Westminster Abbey, for heaven's sake, he's not just "some Brit". But can I find a suitable stub? I cannot. Trying to find something on that page is just madness, even if I'm on the right page for finding, which is not easy to know or guess. "Making simple things complicated, It's the Wiki Way." </rant mode> Sorry. Just had to let that steam off somewhere. Tag the blessed thing however you like. Aelfgifu 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider the following points: Tagging it UK-bio-stub alone will not help too much. But tagging it with something like UK-artist-stub is likely to help quite a lot. if the only stub tag available were {{stub}}, we would now have one stub category with 400,000 articles in it. Do you think it would ever be discovered in there? UK-artist-stub, though, leads to a category with about 260 stubs - far easier for someone to find what they're looking for. As for why it's so complicated, this wikiproject has 350 people trying to keep stub templates and categories in some form of order. there are 3500 stub types, and some 2000000 Wikipedian editors many of whom simply decide to create stub types on a whim with no thought as to what typoes are already available - it's no wonder it's complicated work trying to keep that in order. It's not like trying to herd cats - it's like trying to herd 400,000 cats into 3500 different enclosures while 2,000,000 try to build alternative enclosures along the course. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types&oldid=95180936"