Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

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


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



Interpreter stubs[edit]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_12#Category:Chinese_interpreter_stubs. The cat "Chinese interpreter stubs" was deleted, but none of the possible associated actions were taken. I tweaked the stub template but was reluctant to create the new cat. Do feel free to change it further. All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

Discussion at Idea Lab[edit]

A discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Definition_of_a_stub_and_automatic_removal_of_stub_templates includes a proposal to distinguish stubs and non-stubs by size, and may be of interest. PamD 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"incomplete" tags[edit]

Do tags like {{inc-films}} and {{inc-video}} infringe on stubs, or {{expand}} or the result of the deletion of start-class stub-like tags? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, an incomplete list can be any size and may never be complete, plus the folks who are into editing lists may not overlap with those who are into stub sorting. So when I find something that's a list without other article-type content, I tend to tag it as a list and not a stub. As for {{expand}} or {{expandsection}}, to my knowledge that's to be used on sections, not necessarily the entire article. Start-Class or Stub-Class templates usually show up on talk pages and I leave 'em alone, regardless of where I find 'em - those are connected with various projects or task forces. Hope this helps, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong! Cheers, Pegship (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Indicating the list is not complete seems to contradict WP:NODISCLAIMERS and WP:NOTFINISHED, since any article can be incomplete, and we don't indicate such usually. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, as far as my limited understanding of list tags goes. Pegship (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Stub template generating a grammatical error[edit]

G'day, not sure where to bring this up, but anyway...; the Template {{Australia-documentary-film-stub}} generates the phrase "a Australian" when placed in an article. When looking into this, I also found that {{Austria-company-stub}} generates "a Austrian"; no doubt there will be others as well. Is this something that can be fixed without too much trouble? YSSYguy (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: Yes check.svg fixed, like this and this. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is easy; cheers. YSSYguy (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Redlinked redirect[edit]

Hi all - I've been going through the list of "missing stub types" and fixing any templates that are misspelled or malformed. I've just finished up with {{South Africa-bio-stub}}, which redirects to {{SouthAfrica-bio-stub}}, and now that {{South Africa-bio-stub}} is no longer used on any article, what should I do with it? I can just remove the redirect code, if that's all that's necessary - it's not as though I'd be deleting a legit stub tag. Any advice? Pegship (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pegship: First, don't remove the redirect code. There are several alternative things that can then be done: (i) leave it alone, it does no harm since redirs are WP:CHEAP; (ii) it was created less than a month ago, so you might be able to use {{db-redirtypo}}; (iii) take it to WP:RFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Stub tag on new line[edit]

I'm sure I've read that any {{stub}} tag or specific stub tag should be separated by a blank line above it, but I can't find chapter and verse to quote - not in WP:Layout, for example. I'd like to cite that when asking at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation if they could fix the software so that when an editor adds {{uncat}} and {{stub}}, a common combination, they appear on separate lines (and ideally with a blank line between them). It would save having to add a new line or two manually every time. Any thoughts? PamD 11:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It would look cleaner, certainly. (I've been running into a lot of new stub articles where someone has put {{uncat}}{{stub}} and various other templates all on the same edit line. All the curly brackets...) Anyway, the blank line idea sounds okay, as long as we don't have to tinker with thousands of stub templates. Anyone else? Her Pegship (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
At one time, WP:FOOTERS mentioned stub templates and also that they should be preceded by two blank lines. It's certainly in this version from 18:17, 25 June 2010 - the last one to treat appendices and footers differently. It was removed 08:11, 14 January 2011 in this edit by Debresser (talk · contribs). That page has been chopped about so much in recent years that it's hard to tell what else has been lost. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Lepidoptera stubs[edit]

Is there a preferred method for proposing a significant number of stub-templates and categories? I suspect "drowning the proposals page in them, listing them one-by-one" isn't it, right?

I'm asking because the stub-sorting on Lepidoptera and everything downstream from there is quite the mess in its current state. As of my most recent check of Category:Moth stubs and its subcats, as well as Category:Butterfly stubs and its subcats, there are dozens of categories with over 500 articles, of which over a dozen has 1000+ articles. The worst case at the moment is the end-level Category:Gelechiidae stubs, which currently holds over 5500 stubs. Even leaving aside the taxonomically contentious cases, there's a lot that can be done to partially diffuse at least the worst of such categories.

(Not blaming WikiProject Stub sorting for the mess, by the way. The state of the stub-categorization rather closely mirrors that of the 'normal' Lepidoptera categorization, which is also messy. Is what happens when a Wikiproject has around 9000-30000 times more articles than active members, I suppose, as is the case with Wikiproject Lepidoptera. (90000+ articles, maybe ten active editors per year of which at any given moment maybe 2-5 are actually active at the same time).

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to stub-sorting land! If you browse through archived proposal pages, you'll see how large clumps of stub types have been proposed. There are a lot of stubs not yet created that might serve your purposes; when I get to a place where I can navigate I'll post directions. Meanwhile, thanks for your contributions. Her Pegship (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, must've overlooked those archives, will take a good look at them soon. Also, thank you! I'll admit I'm not the most familiar with the whole stub-sorting process; that is, I know how to apply the templates to articles of course, and within the Lepidoptera category I can reasonably-well figure out where stubs go (and when I can't, it's not so much because of stub-sorting issues but taxonomy issues), but the proposing/creating side of things I'm relatively inexperienced in. (The main reason I'm diving in is that I'm trying to straighten out some of the various background and maintenance related backlogs and issues on Wikiproject Lepidoptera, as it's very, very necessary. The stub-group of categories and the end-level categories+their direct parent-cat in the normal categorization tree are the easiest to fix on the side of categorization and the least likely to create yet more issues and backlogs while finished only partway, or even should they remain finished only partway, and so long as there still are hundreds of those relatively minor, fixable but frustrating/hindering issues lingering about, it's not like any effort towards the larger issues has any chance of succeeding) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
For existing moth-stub or lepidoptera-stub cats that might be of use to you, have a look at Category:Underpopulated_stub_categories. For stub types already approved and ready to be created, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/To_do/To_create. As I know nothing about scientific classification, I don't have eny more specific suggestions. :P Good luck. Her Pegship (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Project member Dravecky died a few days ago[edit]

Dravecky (talk · contribs) died last Saturday, April 23. See his talk page for details.

He is listed as a member of this WikiProject. I will leave it up to his fellow WikiProject participants to decide when it would be appropriate to remove him from the list of active participants. His user page may be locked-down so it may require an administrator to remove him from the relevant wikiproject-participation-category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Stub types list section & lag[edit]

The Invertebrates part of the Science section of the stub-types list is growing unwieldy. The primary issue is the Insects group of stubs, of which especially the moths group is not. helping., but butterflies, beetles and some other insects play a role as well. The page lags something fierce on editing, even if just the invertebrates section (at least for me, but I'm on a fairly good though not top-of-the-line pc, so I'm probably not the only one) and we're reaching the point where some of the entries have ********** in front of them. That's ten bullets, for those not inclined to count 'm.

Would it perhaps be possible to move the Insects part of the Invertebrates section of Science to its own page and then transclude it onto the list, or can someone think of a different solution? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

adding stub of indian kabbadi players[edit]

Sangwansunny (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)sangwansunny i just want to know that can i create a stub of indain kabbadi players? Sangwansunny (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)sangwansunny

@Sangwansunny: first, read the guidelines at WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stub types – procedure. Then, if you can find 60 articles that would be suitable for this, file a proposal at WP:WSS/P#NEW PROPOSALS. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs[edit]

Deletion discussion under way for a stub category which conforms to the standard tree and has 61 stubs. Input from other stub sorters would be welcome. Grutness...wha? 15:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

AALERTS[edit]

Hi all - the recent kerfuffle over the TfD/CfD for {{Nelson-geo-stub}} and its category has highlighted a problem we often have at WPSS - keeping track of deletion nominations for stub types on those process pages. The XfD watcher who was most heavily involved in the discussions - User:BU Rob13 - has suggested something we should have probably done ages ago - getting WP:AALERTS messages posted here whenever such a discussion comes up. BU Rob13 has kindly offered to run a bot to tag all stub templates and categories that are in Category:Stub categories and Category:Stub message templates. All that's needed is agreement here that this would be a good idea. Please add a yay or nay comment below... cheers, Grutness...wha? 01:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • YAY.:P Her Pegship (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • yay. I watchlist the Portugal related alerts. It works. Not sure if we would have high traffic for stubs and if that would still work fine (Portugal articles only have a couple nomination a week) - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nabla: As a regular closer at TfD and CfD, I can say that nominations of stub templates and categories are exceedingly rare. The stub articles themselves wouldn't be tagged. ~ Rob13Talk 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: Right. I close a few TfDs once in a while and I do not recall the last time I saw a stub template there. So much so that I forgot that I *might* have seen one :-) - Nabla (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
        • True - after the problems with the Nelson template I had a quick look through all other open discussions and only found one other stub category up for discussion. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 23. ~ Rob13Talk 19:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Grutness: Do you want to handle the actual enrollment in AALERTS or would you like me to? I've never done it before, but I think it's meant to be easy to stumble through. We may have to enable categorization on Template:WikiProject Stub sorting in order to use AALERTS. I can take care of that piece if it's necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 23:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I think you know more about the process than I do, so if you don't mind it's probably best if you handle it! Thanks Grutness...wha? 01:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You an find the AALERTS here. Still waiting on approval for the bot task to do the actual tagging, so it's not functional yet, but you can throw it on your watchlist so that it'll work when things are functioning. ~ Rob13Talk 13:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    You don't need to do it via WikiProject banner - you can configure AALERTS to detect a category, which might be Category:Stub message templates. In the {{ArticleAlertSubscription}} you would add |maincategory=Stub message templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: I know very little about AALERTS, so if there's a better way, I'm certainly all for it. I wasn't aware of the undocumented non-talk-page category option. Is there a way to do this with multiple categories or only the one? As it stands, we need both Category:Stub message templates and Category:Stub categories to be included, but there doesn't appear to be any functionality to subscribe to two categories for a single project. Am I missing something? ~ Rob13Talk 22:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    Only one; but let's see what this does at about 08:15 (UTC) tomorrow. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    Didn't work, so I amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    That won't cover everything we need, so I think tagging is the better solution here. There's also awareness advantages to tagging; editors who aren't familiar with this WikiProject (including myself until recently) can realize it exists via the template. The bot task has been approved, so I'll go ahead with that tonight. ~ Rob13Talk 13:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    No good there either. Hellknowz, what's the best way for AALERTS to detect pages in either Category:Stub categories or Category:Stub message templates? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#More than one category is related. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Going ahead with tagging now. ~ Rob13Talk 00:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Would creating an actual WikiProject template be a better approach? The project would basically be only project, template and category classes so there can be more variety in those classes since it's not really touching more of mainspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    We already have that at {{WikiProject Stub sorting}}. Redrose was arguing that using the existing categories would be better, but that doesn't seem to work given the limits of a single category and no subcategories being tracked. I'm approved for a bot task to tag all the talk pages, so I'll go ahead with that when I have a chance. Going to happy hour tonight and I don't edit/run a bot while drinking, so it'll probably be tomorrow. ~ Rob13Talk 20:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, notice the relative lack of edits made by me after about 12:00 (British time) on the third Sunday of each month. See also WP:DRUNK. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AALERTS update[edit]

The AALERTS is beginning to work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Article alerts. Please note that tagging is still ongoing and likely to take until Thursday or Friday given the large number of edits, so not everything will appear there yet. I can tag again in the future if needed, but there shouldn't be a need; please tag new stub categories/templates as they're created instead. ~ Rob13Talk 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

CfD discussion[edit]

See here for a CfD discussion relating to a stub category. ~ Rob13Talk 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Songs/singles stub categories[edit]

What are your thoughts on using the Category:1960s singles and similar decade categories as the basis for moving stubs from {{1960s-song-stub}} to {{1960s-single-stub}}? i.e. If an article is in the Category:1960s singles tree and has {{1960s-song-stub}} on the page, it would be swapped over to {{1960s-single-stub}}. I recently used this to populate Category:1950s singles, which was undersized, but it seems to make sense to more broadly use this to refine stub categorization of songs. I ran some pre-parsing using WP:AWB and an automated task to do this would result in edits to 1,612 articles. All the singles stub categories are sub-categories of the songs stub categories, of course. Yea/nay? ~ Rob13Talk 02:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've always given up trying to sort songs/singles stubs because while I understand that a single means something released as a single song from an album...to me it's still a song. I applaud any efforts you make, as long as the categories assigned to an article are appropriate. Her Pegship (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The advantage of using the existing categorization to assign these stub categories is that, without checking the facts of each article, I can guarantee that each categorization will be no more incorrect than the existing categorization. I can't guarantee that there aren't songs in Category:1961 singles which don't belong there any more than I can guarantee someone didn't categorize New York in Category:Green Bay Packers players when I run a WikiProject tagging run, but this at least achieves consistency in our categorization. If there's an error, at least it wasn't introduced by such an automated run; it was an error in the existing categorization. Having said that, I spot-checked Category:1950s singles before giving it a similar treatment with semi-automation and found no instances where the songs weren't actually singles. ~ Rob13Talk 05:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Automatic stub sorting (kind of)[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 25, which is a proposed bot task that would make it easy to populate stub categories based on existing categorization schemes. See the songs/singles category above here for an example where this has already been put to good use. Any comments at the BRFA are greatly appreciated. ~ Rob13Talk 23:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Another Cfd[edit]

Category:Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska geography stubs was nominated for deletion. I nominated a host of related categories along with it. See discussion here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Redux[edit]

Yet another CfD here. ~ Rob13Talk 02:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Project stubs vs. sorted stubs[edit]

This is kind of a headache, but I assume someone must have discussed this before. What's the deal with project stubs vs. sorted stubs? I'm currently running AWB through Category:Stub-Class Australian rules football articles to get a sense of how many of the 13,174 stubs in that category don't have any sort of stub template on the actual article page. It's not painting a great picture so far. The pre-parsing is around half done and over 75% aren't in stub categories on the actual article page. ~ Rob13Talk 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There are at least 600,000 stubs within Category:Stub-Class articles which aren't in Category:All stub articles, based on the amount of pages in each. That number is a lower bound based on the obviously-flawed assumption that every stub article in Category:All stub articles is within Category:Stub-Class articles (the larger category), but there's certainly quite a large number that aren't. ~ Rob13Talk 23:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems the "Stub-Class" talk page banners are for the benefit/use of specific projects (such as the History Project), whose definition of "stub" is evaluated within the context of their own subject area. I don't feel strongly about bringing the Stub-Class articles in line with WPSS types; I've been ignoring the talk page templates for 8 years now without a qualm. XD Her Pegship (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of the 13,174 "stubs" based on that talk page category, around 4,500 of them are not tagged with stub templates and contain less than 1,500 total characters (including everything in the source code, even infoboxes, navboxes, etc). Those should unambiguously be tagged with stub templates, I think. I'll go to WP:WikiProject Australian rules football about it, but I do wonder whether other projects have similar stats. ~ Rob13Talk 02:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Stub-class, in the context of a WikiProject banner, is just one level on a whole spectrum. The vast majority of WikiProjects respect the scale at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades, although a small number of WikiProjects (such as Military History) have custom criteria for some levels. The reason that many WikiProjects have their own pages for assessment criteria is partly to accommodate the custom scales (the most common customisation being the omission of A-class), but mainly so that examples specific to that WikiProject may be given in the last column. Although rows may be added or omitted, the columns (other than the last one) for any given row should be the same for all WikiProjects. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems more like an issue of a lack of tagging with the project at all rather than somehow mis-tagging items. These are different mechanisms and so there's a discrepancy there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed frequently in the past. Stub-Class articles are not really connected with stubs in any way at all. In many cases, an article can be regarded as Stub-Class by a WikiProject while no longer being a stub, and vice versa, depending on a project's own definitions. Given that stubs are intended to work across the entirety of Wikipedia independent of individual subject projects, we have different guidelines for what is and isn't a stub to those used by the individual projects. Although 600,000 seems pretty high and some stubbing might be necessary, it's not too much of a surprise that there are some articles which are Stub-Class but not stubs. Similarly, there are probably quite a large number of stubs which are Start-Class. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would the stub sorting project have any objection to automatically adding stub templates to articles which are both Stub-Class and less than 1,500 characters in total prose? That would include even the source code for infoboxes, etc., so those are unambiguously actual stubs. This would be something I'd talk to individual projects about to see if they're interested in this in their content areas, but I don't want to start conversations about this if the stub sorters would object. ~ Rob13Talk 01:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Grutness: Other then MILHIST (which has its own rules), please give an example of a WikiProject whose criteria for stub-class differ from those at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
WP Highways, WP Catholicism, WP India, WP Alternative music... In any case, given that the definition of Stub-Class at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades is different to the definition of a stub as used elsewhere in Wikipedia (such as at WPSS), the discrepancy is still there. The definition of Stub-Class is very loose, though workable; that used for stubs in general is a bit more strict (for example, an article with one sentence of text and a large infobox might be considered Start-Class, inasmuch as it "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more". It would still, however, be a stub, as it only has one line of text). This is why Stub-Class and stub are different things and have different, though similar, names (ISTR when the assignment classes were inaugurated, several of us at WPSS asked unsuccessfully for the name of the smallest class to be changed, realising that just this sort of confusion would occur). Grutness...wha? 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Noongar stubs at CFD[edit]

There's a current CFD discussion about how to structure Category:Noongar stubs within Template:Noongar-stub at CFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What are criteria for un-stubbing?[edit]

I just edited the Nazi_Anti-Flag_Desecration entry, to the point where it may no longer be a stub.

What are the criteria to remove the stub attribute, and who does the removing?

Tatzelbrumm (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tatzelbrumm: See WP:DESTUB. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we want to add the big-bold-notice as an WP:Editnotice?[edit]

Pegship copied the notice that is at the top of this page (right above the first comment) to the bottom of the page a few months ago.[1]

Unfortunately, the use of "Add topic" or "+" (depending on your settings) "breaks" the intent of his edit, so I removed it.[2]

If too many people are ignoring the existing notice near the top of this page, we can ask an administrator to create an "Edit notice" that will appear any time a user edits this page.

Is there a big enough problem to warrant doing this?

For reference, here is a copy of the text that is at the top of the page:

copy of big notice that is at the top of the page


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


davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The editnotice would be created at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and you don't need an admin for that - anybody with the WP:TPE right can do it. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That would be great. Her Pegship (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Responding to my own question: Personally, I don't care one way or the other, except that having editnotices without at least some real need is probably a bad idea. So, is there a need? How often do people use this page as a forum to suggest articles? If it's less than a handful per year, then I would say it's "clearly not needed." if it's more than a handful of times a month, then I would say it is "clearly needed." Anything in between is in that grey zone of "maybe, maybe not." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Frisia stubs[edit]

I see there's a Category:Frisia stubs which looks like it's been created out of process with one member as part of a wider creation of a new WikiProject - anyone want to take a look? Le Deluge (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Other ones that looks like they may have been created out of process are {{Guam-weightlifting-bio-stub}} which goes into the red-linked Category:Guam sportspeople stubs, by the same author {{United States-weightlifting-bio-stub}} which goes into Category:North America weightlifting biography stubs, and {{Evansville-stub}} which goes into Category:Evansville, Indiana stubs. Le Deluge (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I left a note on the page of the creator of the Frisian template; I don't know anything about the Evansville one, except that a city's got to be pretty dang big before it merits enough articles for a stub type. {{Guam-weightlifting-bio-stub}} feeds into both Category:Weightlifting biography stubs and Category:Guam sportspeople stubs; {{United States-weightlifting-bio-stub}} feeds into Category:American weightlifting biography stubs, but it's not formatted correctly and there's another template for that category already ({{US-weightlifting-bio-stub}}). I'll go tweak that and the Guam template, but Frisia and Evansville probably need some discussion. Her Pegship (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The sports guy has been busy with more, {{Kosovo-weightlifting-bio-stub}} and {{Aruba-weightlifting-bio-stub}} feeding into Category:Weightlifting biography stubs and Category:Aruban sportspeople stubs/Category:Kosovan sportspeople stubs are the ones that crossed my radar as the cats are red links, but he's done many more. In general he seems to be doing a pretty good and thankless job, but might benefit from a bit of gentle steering. As far as the Frisia one goes, the project looks like one of those 1-man creations that's set up out of either misguided enthusiasm or trying to push a political POV - either way I'd suggest that existing Dutch and German categories are sufficient. Evansville - my guess was probably not, but wasn't sure of how "splitty" people were round here. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Mwa, the Frisia one could have good use if rather than its current use of 'geography of Frisia' (which is sufficiently covered by the appropriate German and Dutch geography subcats), it were to be used for stubs about either historical Frisia or Frisia in the broadest meaning. By keeping it solely to Geography, there is little point in it, as the category is unlikely to find more than a handful articles that aren't better off in the already-existing structure. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Trouble with that is always keeping people away from the geography, unless you rename it frisia-history or something? The obvious question is how do we handle the other fragments of the historical Low Countries, do we separate them or just lump them in to the modern country histories? The Evansville template is currently not being used - population is 120k so pretty marginal in any case for its own stub type? Le Deluge (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I've put Evansville up for deletion here.Le Deluge (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Stubs for creation[edit]

Stubs for creation (SFC) is a proposed task force for Articles for creation. SFC will assist new editors in creating useful stubs on notable subjects. Please feel free to discuss and expand on the idea at Draft:Stubs for creation. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

{{videogame-stub}} and {{inc-vg}}[edit]

I reverted an image change on the videogame-stub and inc-vg templates because it appears it was done for the purpose of advertising the video game Wikiproject. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

KATMAKROFAN refers to this edit and this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)