Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Stub icons

In other news, I mentioned above that it might be beneficial to use one image for all stub templates. Or perhaps to assign said image to the standard stub template, then if something cooler comes along (such as the totally wonderful film icons), it could be replaced on that template. I'm thinking, since there is a proliferation of little national icons all over WP, the letter image might be more distinctive in drawing attention to the message. Any takers? Pegship (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should open a wider discussion on stubs on the Village pump proposals or something. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


Why is there a dash in the middle of "screen-writer" in {{screen-writer-stub}} and {{US-screen-writer-stub}}? Is it a mistake (see screenwriter, Category:Screenwriters, and Category:Screenwriter stubs) or is it deliberate, perhaps intended to indicate that this is a sub-template of {{writer-stub}}? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason. It's an analogy of the reason there aren't hyphens in stubs like DoctorWho-stub - if there was a hyphn there it would be considered a subtype of Who-stub. Similarly (well, oppositely, i suppose), screen-writer-stub is a subtype of writer-stub, so gets a hypheen, even though the category name is the standard spelling, keeping it in line with the permcat Category:Screenwriters. A redirect at screenwriter-stub might be useful, though. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. Per your suggestion, I have created Template:Screenwriter-stub as a redirect. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub template categories

I noticed today that several categories for stub templates were created in the past few days by Ark25 (talk · contribs). This did not strike me as odd at first, but then I noticed that the parent category for these categories—Category:Stub templates—was deleted following a series of discussions wherein it was argued that the existence of stub template categories needlessly increased the workload for this WikiProject and encouraged the creation of stub templates and categories outside of the established review process. I am posting this thread so that editors with more experience working with stubs can assess the necessity and desirability of the new categories. (I have informed Ark25 of this thread.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the message. 2 days ago I opened the disscution there: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Category_for_stub_templates. I was asked if I can address the issues it was deleted for. Well, at the moment I am working hard at ro:Categorie:Formate cioturi, the equvalent of the deleted Category:Stub templates. The main reason the category was deleted is because it was considered to duplicate the effort of stub sorting. From what I can see in my work at sorting stub templates at WP:RO, I can already say that:
  • By the contrary, categorizing the stub templates is not duplicating the effort, it is helping it a lot ! It is much easier to add interlanguage links to stub templates if you can navigate trough categories, then jump to the other languages equivalents for those categories. Also, it is much easier to maintain the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types by navigating trough categories. However, I find that list (Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types) a joke, it is so long that I can't even stand to wait to load the page, not to speak about scrolling it. However, for the people who would find that page more usefull, navigating trough categories would help adding new stub templates to that page.
  • We just need a simple rule: when someone creates a stub template, they will have to add it to the Category:Stub templates, or to a more appropriate sub-category. Once done that, the people willing to maintain it (like me), will pick up the stub template and throw it to the exact sub-categories where they belong. That way, all stub templates would belong to the tree, and it will make finding the right stub template a piece of cake. Ark25 (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Stub template categories have been discussed here a couple of times in the past, and have been rejected - those that were created (like your ones, they were unproposed at WP:WSS/P) were deleted at the time of those discussions. They do very clearly duplicate the effort for the stub-sorting wikiproject, and also encourage the creation of stub templates without those templates going through the standard vetting process (as was alluded to by Black Falcon). As such, I'm very strongly against them existing here. I would like to see other opinions from within WP:WSS, although as I said, on previous occasions when they were discussed, they were rejected. I'd ask you to please not create any more such categories until ere's been a chance for discussion to take place. Grutness...wha? 07:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, we can create a simple rule that says "do not create new stub templates without going through the standard vetting process". Like any other rule or guide, it should be respected. That would eliminate the problem of superficially created stub templates. At moment I am focused at WP:RO, and it will take me lots of days, weeks untill I categorize/interwiki them all. I will be able to have a better opinion after that. Howeveer, after 2 days of work, I can see that, those categories are not duplicating the effort of sorting stub templates at all, by the contrary, it helps it. I wonder: are those people maintaining the list really expecting anyone would have the patience to navigate trough that gigantic page? Untill now I created 4 such categories, and 2 of them were to group the already exising stub template categories (eg. Category:Stub templates by country), and I will stop making more. I got lots of sorting to do at WP:RO anyways. Ark25 (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That rule has already existed for over five years, and is broken on a regular basis several times per month - the less encouragement there is for people to break it, the better. The new categories are already causing more work for stub-sorters here, as they are a further level of categories which have to be regularly checked and patrolled. People do regularly navigate through the not-nearly-so-gigantic subpages of the page you are referring to, and through the stub categories,w hich themselves serve as de facto template categories. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub/expand discussion at VP

There's an interesting discussion at the pump on the use of stub and expand templates (don't worry - nothing that would affect any business done here). It includes a list of the over 1200 articles currently marked with both {{expand}} and a stub template. I've suggested that if in doubt the stub template should remain (we can always weed out any that don't need it - and much faster than having to re-sort any subcategorised stubs) - and that a bot could be used to remove all the {{expand}} templates. Anyone up for the task? Grutness...wha? 11:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I can work on part of this with my non bot, AWB account. That way any spelling problems, etc can be done at the same time.--Rockfang (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks! Grutness...wha? 01:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why the Expand templates should be removed. Response? GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Because if there is a stub template on an article, it implies a need to be expanded. And so the expanded template is redundant and should be removed.--Rockfang (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
See also {{Expand/doc}}. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


Looks like we may have to accept having /doc files on stub templates, if current debate at WP:SFD is anything to go by. A shame, since it will increase the number of pages we have to partrol by about 40% (if one stub template has one, every template will need one - and they'll all have to be checked regularly to make sure they tally with each other and with WP:STUB). I'm not quite sure how we'll cope with that, but time will tell... Grutness...wha? 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

By the wonders of transclusion it is possible to have one central copy so that it not necessary to maintain separate pages. It could just be a link to Wikipedia:Stub but, although this page is excellently written, it is very long and perhaps a summarised page would be helpful to editors (who could obviously come to the main stub page for more details) containing basic information such as
  • how to identify a stub?
  • what's the purpose of categorising them?
  • how to find the most suitable stub template, i.e. what is the naming system
  • brief information on how to propose new types
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
All of which is already on WP:STUBS. And by the wonders of having several million editors, how do you propose we ensure that all of these remain transcluded once they've been made, without patrolling all of them? How do you propose that we won't suddenly get people writing new /doc files which state that certain specific stubs need to be treated differently - as has already happened a couple of times since the creation of {{stub/doc}}? And how, pray tell, would transclusion solve the problem which initially prompted you to make {{stub/doc}}, i.e., the adding of interwiki links to one specific stub template? If you add it to a multiply-transcluded /doc file, it will link to every single template, thereby defeating the purpose. So: 1) it won't do anything which WP:STUB doesn't already do; 2) it will make it much harder to patrol; 3) it isn't usable for what you wanted it for. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. Yes it's all on WP:STUB but as I said, I believe that a summarised version would be of great help to the regular editor who doesn't need to know (or is too lazy to read) the whole of that page.
  2. Patrolling won't be a problem because there will be one version of the documentation which can be watchlisted.
  3. If a template is transcluded inside noinclude tags then it is trivial to check for the existence of a subpage and include it. This could /doc or, if there are genuine concerns about the proliferation of specific documentation files, it could even be /interwiki to emphasise that it is only for interwikis. So yes, it is possible to do both (and incidentally the {{stub doc}} that I started to work on does do both!)
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. Can you guarantee that a summarised version won't get out of line with the version at WP:STUB. No. It will be a fork of that page, and as such is unnecessary and will cause extra work.
  2. One version either with: (a) a huge number of redirects, all of which will have to be watchlisted, or (b) several thousand redirects, all of which will need to be watchlisted, and all of which will be open to rewriting as separate /doc files.
  3. If I grasp what you're saying here correctly you're directly contradicting your earlier point. How can there be just one /doc file linking to everything, as you state in point 2, if you expect it to be able to link interwikis for each specific stub template? The main reason you started making /doc files was because you found it difficult to make specific interwiki links for specific templates. If there's only one /doc file, then it would be primarily for {{stub}}, and would therefore only be useful for linking thee iws directly relating to that template. You couldn't link, for example, the US-geo-stub used on the Italian language Wikipedia with the one used here - you'd have to link it to stub. If you did link it to this wikipedia's US-geo-stub, then you'd either have to continue using the current method (which works very well and doesn't need changing), or create a separate /doc file (or if you prefer, and /interwiki file, though the name difference is a red herring) for US-geo-stub. Which defeats your point 2 that there would be "be one version of the documentation which can be watchlisted" - there's be one version all right - one version for each and every template, that is, some 3000 /ddoc files to keep an eye on.
No. Your suggested method of working using /doc files will (a) add no benefit not already afforded by the current metho,d (b) will make patrolling far harder for WP:WSS members, (c) will inevitably lead to a myriad forks of WP:STUB, and (d) will make it possible for anyone to add their own provisos and rules for specific stub templates, rendering it impossible to use them in a uniform way across Wikipedia. It won't work, and trying to make it work will simply risk making the current stub system unworkable. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What he is suggesting is creating the /doc subpage for the specific template, but transcluding the actual documentation from elsewhere. So template:Foo-stub has Template:Foo-stub/doc and in that page you transclude the standard doc subpage and then have a place to put interwikis below it. This should really only be necessary for stubs templates that are protected, I think a doc page is overkill for all the little tiny ones. –xenotalk 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Or just use {{doc|Title:OfCentralDocumentation}}, and don't bother with individual /doc pages. Maybe in that central documentation we could have a conditional section to display 'specific' documentation from individual /doc pages under a suitable header. The documentation could even be automagically included by {{asbox}} in the same was as {{WPBannerMeta}} includes its warning omboxes. There are a variety of ways in which we could implement this successfully, now that we have a meta-template to propagate changes with. (also)Happymelon 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Interwiki bots wouldn't be able to handle this though. Of course, interwiki bots using pywikipedia aren't supposed to work in the template namespace anyway, but there may be others that properly handle /doc subpages.xenotalk 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I mean we write a central documentation at, say, Template:Stub documentation, transclude that everywhere with {{doc|stub documentation}}; then in the central documentation we have a section for 'specific documentation', which does a test like {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}} to transclude the /doc subpage of each template if it exists. So interwiki bots can add interwikis in the /doc subpage in the normal way. We could also add a tracking cat so that the use of this system can be easily patrolled. (also)Happymelon 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for explaining. That sounds like an excellent way to handle this, and we can use asbox to display the default documentation. –xenotalk 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that would work just fine. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, this is pretty much what I was thinking. In most cases it seems there is no need for any specific documentation, but putting interwikis in a separate page is a good idea especially on protected templates. We could maybe use some neat check with the {{PROTECTIONLEVEL}} magic word. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Now that the discussion on Template:Stub/doc has closed as "keep" it might be a good time to resume this discussion about providing a standard documentation on stub templates. I propose to do this exactly as Happy-melon has suggested above. Would any of the stub-sorting regulars care to write an abbreviated form of WP:Stub in clear language which would be suitable for this purpose? Otherwise I'll have a go myself but it might not be as good. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Recomended code

At Template:School-stub, I see: [[category:School stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]

At Template:Lawschool-stub, I see: <includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category: Law school stubs|*]]</noinclude>

Which form is prefered? I personally think [[Category:School stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]] is better, and when I add an interwiki link to a stub template I am changing the code with that, but I want to be sure. If it's not recommended, then I'll stop making that kind of modifications.

Another question: I see at Template:Seminary-stub, the Template is made using {{Asbox}}, is this method a new and recommended one? Thanks Ark25 (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the space and the asterisk are used for piping in different sets of circumstances. Normally the base type in a category would get an asterisk, but if there are upmerged templates of another type (e.g., country-specific subtypes which don't yet have enough stubs for their own category) then onthere will often be different piping to separate the different types of templates (similar things are done with subcategories when they are being split by two different axes (see Category:United Kingdom stubs for an example: country-specific types use space, subject-specific types use asterisk). Not sure if that is the case here, but it may well be.
As for {{asbox}}, it is recommended by the people who devised asbox, who seem to think it's the bee's knees - but largely avoided by WP:WSS, because it creates more work. We've been having a running battle over asbox for some time (see previous comments on this page). I know of several stub-sorters who revert asbox templates to the older (more easily maintained) type whenever they see them. Grutness...wha? 08:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't seen the "*". Sometimes I have seen code like: <includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category: Law school stubs| ]]</noinclude>, the effect is the same with [[Category: Law school stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]], which is much shorter. Other times I see code like <includeonly>[[Category: Law school stubs]]</includeonly> (the template won't appear in the category). Also, check the Template:Iran-university-stub, it has: [[Category:Iran university stubs]] , no "noinclude", no "includeonly", so the Template will be shown at "T" in the category. Of course, "*" is used with a good purpose. Ark25 (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah - sorry. Misunderstood you. [[Category: Law school stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]] is correct - so you're right to change the others - though the longer way of achieving the same thing works (the shorter way is preferred simply because it is easier to code and neater to look at). The template should always appear in the category, so the category shouldn't be includeonly'd - the only exception is the basic {{stub}}, which doesn't appear in Category:Stubs. Sometimes the templates aren't piped and appear under "T"- this was the older way of doing things and most of the ones which used it have gradually been piped, though you still come across the occasional unpiped template. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like this characterisation of the debate as a "running battle". There are plenty of weasel words thrown around by {{asbox}}'s detractors, mostly citing nebulous concerns about the maintainability of such templates without providing any concrete examples, but the actual discussion has been pretty low-key and good-tempered. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
My apologies -"long-running debate"? Grutness...wha? 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Just piped Template:AncientRome-stub, I think I'll use AWB later to fix all the remaining unpiped templates Ark25 (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Just letting everyone here know that I posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Stub_Changes.
Ω (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

California geographical stubs

There are some people proposing to delete or redirect California's geographical stubs having a list because stubs are bad. Is this contrary to policy? Consistent with policy? Need any consensus to implement? Or is it any editor's or a group of a few editors' prerogative to redirect or delete any set of stubs they'd prefer not exist? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think they would at least need a consensus at an SfD.--Rockfang (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just take a look at the article for this talk page. The correct procedure is spelled out there.
Ω (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Can I get some eyes on my further proposal here? Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorising Stub categories

Question: I see Category:Stub categories has zillions of sub-categories. I think it should have sub-categories like "Stub categories by year", "Stub categories by country", "Stub categories by Science", "Stub categories for music" etc. More or less like the Category:Contents is organised. Or not? Ark25 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a long overdue suggestion... but who's going to organise it? That sounds like a major effort... Grutness...wha? 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've put all computer science stubs I could find in Category:computer science stubs along the lines of Category:mathematics stubs without ever seeing this discussion. Perhaps if you notify other relevant wikiprojects possibly someone knowledgeable in their filed will do the part of the work relevant to them? Pcap ping 11:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm. so it would seem - some of those templates look suspiciously unproposed... It's a good idea, though. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

American film actor, 1850s birth stubs

Per this discussion, I thought Template:US-film-actor-1850s-stub and Category:American film actor, 1850s birth stubs should have been changed. Can someone either remove the articles per the discussion or create the category so that it works again? If someone just wants to restore it and needs an admin's help, just message me. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The templates were upmerged at the time, but an anon decided last month that they should have their own categories (both this one and two others upmerged at the same time) and added redlinks. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

CSS cleanup for existing stubs

User:Jarry1250 has now created a list and AWB frontend, to fix the CSS issues with the current deployed stubs. I invite all Windows users to help fix these issues with AWB. This effort is the alternative for the failed standardization proposal. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is utter madness. We can make a change to one template, or 2828 changes to separate templates? I would suggest no one wastes their time on this when there is a simple and obvious solution to the issue. The reason "it's a full-time task trying to keep stub types standardised" is because currently each template is maintained separately. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think, were you to approach the larger WP community DJ, you'd find support. --Izno (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This has all been posted on Village Pumps at least 3 times now. Obviously the large community does not care, and as such I do not feel like getting into a fight with the smaller community. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done now with stubs. If anyone else wants to try, you have my support. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think several people have cared enough to try to do something about it in the past, but you'd need them all to come together to get any momentum. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see the above straw poll. I agree this is ridiculous to have to have a bot edit 2800+ pages whenever something needs changed. If these had been using a meta-template, my bot proposal would be unnecessary because we could just add a single piece of code to the meta template. –xenotalk 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree; this is a totally unnecessary use of time and resources. These templates need only be edited once, to convert them to a meta-template format; then this change, the alternate-image change, and any other bug fix, usability improvement, feature, tweak or tidbit that WPSS comes up with, can be trivially implemented on one page. You wonder why you spend so much time maintaining the stub templates? Happymelon 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot proposal to convert stub templates to Template:Asbox

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. –xenotalk 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the BRFA to standardize the stubs to Template:Asbox, so that the default alt-text can just be included with the template. Here is a sample of the edits that it will make if approved. –xenotalk 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am happy to announce that this task is  Done, and there are now 13337 uses of Template:Asbox. –xenotalk 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yay Bot & bot owner. Good job. Kudos to you both. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Well done Xeno. You sure put a lot of effort in it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Seriously? 13337 pages? That's got to be some kind of sign. :) Amalthea 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I kid you not! Of course, given that stubs are a never-ending flood; I found another 68 that had been created in the time the bot was running =) Oh well, I was leet for a second. –xenotalk 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of work for the discovery page...

For those of you who don't follow that rarely-used talk page, there's a note at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries#Potentially unapproved stub types using asbox about the discovery of some 3000 stub templates that are either unapproved or unlisted on the main stub list. At first glance, most of them seem to simply be unlisted ones, but there are still a lot of ones we've never had through these pages - including a number which are either pointless or very badly named/structured. Seems like there's a lot of sorting and checking to be done... Grutness...wha? 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the actual number is closer 7500 =\ (list) –xenotalk 00:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hin Xeno - is it ok to edit that working list of yours? That way we can add "√ approved, to list", "X not approved, to check" and the like to them so as to get an idea of what is and isn't there. (at a quick glance I'd say that most have been approved, but there are several problem ones that almost certainly haven't, like the Activision ones and all the Virginia county ones which should be at FooVA not FooVI). Grutness...wha? 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to copy the list somewhere, since I am constantly updating that page as I whittle down the stubs into asboxen. –xenotalk 04:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've transcribed the list to a separate page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Templates to vet - and subdivided it for ease of editing. Cheers. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

stub misdirection

not sure if this is the correct page to place this, but here goes.

Template:England-screen-actor-stub seems to be pointing at Rugbyunion-team-stub, which can be seen in Laura Boddington

MasterFugu (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. This is related to a known AWB bug: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Replacing entire content of a page with the entire content of another page (permlink). Fixed. I am going to investigate to see if there is an easy way to find other pages affected by this. –xenotalk 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard stub wording

What's our position on non-standard stub wording? The standard being

This X article Y is a stub...

Some stubs in place now do not presently contain the word "article" to modify with X or Y.

Pages that do not contain " article ", "asbox" or "{{*-stub}}"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

  1. Template:AFL-bio-1850s-stub thru
  2. Template:AFL-bio-1990s-stub
  3. Template:Africa-academic-bio-stub
  4. Template:Argentina-sport-bio-stub
  5. Template:Asia-academic-bio-stub
  6. Template:Asia-royal-stub
  7. Template:Australia-academic-bio-stub
  8. Template:Australia-business-bio-stub
  9. Template:Australia-rugbyleague-bio-1970s-stub
  10. Template:Australia-rugbyleague-bio-1980s-stub
  11. Template:Australia-rugbyleague-bio-1990s-stub
  12. Template:Australia-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  13. Template:Baronet-stub
  14. Template:Brazil-architect-stub
  15. Template:Canada-academic-bio-stub
  16. Template:Canada-business-bio-stub
  17. Template:Canada-gov-bio-stub
  18. Template:Canada-lacrosse-bio-stub
  19. Template:Canada-med-bio-stub
  20. Template:Canada-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  21. Template:Canada-swimming-bio-stub
  22. Template:China-architect-stub
  23. Template:Comic-strip-creator-stub
  24. Template:Comics-artist-stub
  25. Template:Comics-creator-stub
  26. Template:Comics-writer-stub
  27. Template:CookIslands-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  28. Template:Daimyo-stub
  29. Template:Ecuador-scientist-stub
  30. Template:England-baron-stub
  31. Template:England-duke-stub
  32. Template:England-earl-stub
  33. Template:England-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  34. Template:England-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  35. Template:England-rugbyunion-team-stub
  36. Template:England-viscount-stub
  37. Template:Etruria-stub
  38. Template:Euro-noble-stub
  39. Template:Euro-royal-stub
  40. Template:Europe-comics-creator-stub
  41. Template:Fiji-bio-stub
  42. Template:Fiji-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  43. Template:Fiji-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  44. Template:Forensic(Speech and Debate)-stub
  45. Template:France-med-bio-stub
  46. Template:France-noble-stub
  47. Template:France-philosopher-stub
  48. Template:France-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  49. Template:FrancoBelgian-comics-creator-stub
  50. Template:GB-earl-stub
  51. Template:GB-peer-stub
  52. Template:Germany-philosopher-stub
  53. Template:HongKong-poli-bio-stub
  54. Template:India-noble-stub
  55. Template:Iran2-struct-stub
  56. Template:Ireland-academic-bio-stub
  57. Template:Ireland-duke-stub
  58. Template:Ireland-peer-stub
  59. Template:Ireland-reli-bio-stub
  60. Template:Ireland-royal-stub
  61. Template:Ireland-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  62. Template:Irish -singer-stub
  63. Template:Israel-architect-stub
  64. Template:Italy-academic-bio-stub
  65. Template:Italy-noble-stub
  66. Template:Japan-noble-stub
  67. Template:Japan-royal-stub
  68. Template:Japan-swimming-bio-stub
  69. Template:Lebanon-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  70. Template:LGBT-activist-stub
  71. Template:LGBT-bio-stub
  72. Template:Mars-stub
  73. Template:MEast-royal-stub
  74. Template:Moon-stub
  75. Template:Namibia-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  76. Template:Nauru-bio-stub
  77. Template:NewCaledonia-bio-stub
  78. Template:NewZealand-architect-stub
  79. Template:NewZealand-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  80. Template:PapuaNewGuinea-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  81. Template:Poland-noble-stub
  82. Template:Polisci-bio-stub
  83. Template:Pope-stub
  84. Template:Portugal-royal-stub
  85. Template:Projectname-stub
  86. Template:Publish-bio-stub
  87. Template:Rail-bio-stub
  88. Template:Reli-text-stub
  89. Template:Rugbyleague-bio-stub
  90. Template:Rugbyunion-bio-stub
  91. Template:Russia-noble-stub
  92. Template:Russia-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  93. Template:Samoa-bio-stub
  94. Template:Samoa-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  95. Template:Sci-journal-stub/transclusions snapshot
  96. Template:Scotland-academic-bio-stub
  97. Template:Scotland-noble-stub
  98. Template:Scotland-reli-bio-stub
  99. Template:Scotland-royal-stub
  100. Template:Scotland-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  101. Template:Shipping-bio-stub
  102. Template:Shogun-stub
  103. Template:SouthAfrica-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  104. Template:SouthAfrica-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  105. Template:Stage-actor-stub
  106. Template:Swaziland-royal-stub
  107. Template:Theat-bio-stub
  108. Template:Tonga-bio-stub
  109. Template:Tonga-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  110. Template:Trinidad-sport-bio-stub
  111. Template:UK-architect-stub
  112. Template:UK-baron-stub
  113. Template:UK-comics-creator-stub
  114. Template:UK-duke-stub
  115. Template:UK-earl-stub
  116. Template:UK-marquess-stub
  117. Template:UK-noble-stub
  118. Template:UK-peer-stub
  119. Template:UK-philosopher-stub
  120. Template:UK-reli-bio-stub
  121. Template:UK-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  122. Template:UK-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  123. Template:UK-viscount-stub
  124. Template:US-academic-administrator-stub
  125. Template:US-academic-bio-stub
  126. Template:US-business-academic-bio-stub
  127. Template:US-comics-creator-stub
  128. Template:US-economist-stub
  129. Template:US-English-academic-bio-stub
  130. Template:US-gov-bio-stub
  131. Template:US-historian-stub
  132. Template:US-judge-stub
  133. Template:US-legal-academic-bio-stub
  134. Template:US-linguist-stub
  135. Template:US-philosopher-stub
  136. Template:US-polisci-bio-stub
  137. Template:US-psychologist-stub
  138. Template:US-publish-bio-stub
  139. Template:US-reli-bio-stub
  140. Template:US-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  141. Template:US-sociologist-stub
  142. Template:US-theologian-stub
  143. Template:Wales-academic-bio-stub
  144. Template:Wales-rugbyleague-bio-stub
  145. Template:Wales-rugbyunion-bio-stub
  146. Template:WallisFutuna-bio-stub

Shall I convert these verbatim, or should we standardize the wording? –xenotalk 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What you've put at the top is the usual wording, but we deliberately don't have a standard, since it would sometimes lead to pretty convoluted wording or be misleading (we also have to tread carefully around some political sensibilities with some). As such, it's probably best to convert these as is, and deal with any problem stubs in there separately afterwards (there are definitely a few problems in there - {{Forensic(Speech and Debate)-stub}} is clear SFD-fodder: badly named, no category, badly worded, and ambiguous in its subject matter. And what {{Sci-journal-stub/transclusions snapshot}} is supposed to be the creator alone knows). Grutness...wha? 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I might take those two straight to SFD now. Grutness...wha? 23:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll just convert word for word and they can be looked at afterwards. –xenotalk 23:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Doing it like this doesn't seem too convoluted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
True, but it was much easier to just do it verbatim. 147 in total, see [1] for the contrib series if anyone wants to examine them. Mostly the word "article" was replaced by "biography" (linked or otherwise), in rare cases (comic-book related mostly) it said "profile" instead of biography. –xenotalk 16:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Just wondered how many of the regulars here are watching WP:SFD. It's been very quiet lately - most of the nominations for renaming or deletion have gone through with only the nomination and at most one or two comments, and very few of them from WP:WSS regulars... Grutness...wha? 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

that's one of a number of pages (including this one) I should really take more notice of! Waacstats (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Logic stub image

I've just added {{logic-stub}} to Symbol (formal), and it looks very odd - I can't remember what the image used to look like, but I'm sure it wasn't this. Could some kind soul fix it? PamD (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. It's been like that since November when Alai broke it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And no-one noticed? Thanks, anyway! PamD (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Did s/he break any others at the same time? PamD (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I've been unfair. There seems to be a problem with the image File:Noncont-sym.svg which may not have been present when he/she made that edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't work out how to look at the image's history, but did wonder whether it had been changed. Anyway, it's OK now, thanks. PamD (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to bethe original image, but it looks like it's glitched at some point - it's listed in Commons:Media for cleanup because of its problems. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Should stub categories be in Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace?

A stub classification is for editors to expand the article. Currently stub categories are part of article namespace, which is for readers of WP. Even though the stubs are tucked away at the end of the category listings I feel than they should be part of Wikipedia namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I really can't work out what you mean. Stubs are articles and so they are in article namespace. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
But a notification of them is not needed in the article namespace because that is of interest for editors rather than readers. Content and editing (maintenance) should be, and generally are, kept separate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. Aren't all categories in the Category namespace? Perhaps you mean that stub categories should be hidden categories? --Alynna (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, all categories are in category namespace but the contents of the category are in article, template, talk user namespaces etc. I think you have given me the answer. I feel that all stub categories should be hidden since they are part of the maintenance of WP not the content. Of lesser importance, and I am not sure if this can be done, is to hide the stub category in its associated article space category. As a test I have hidden Category:Environment stubs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't. Hiding stub categories has been tried before, and made work more difficult for stub sorters, since it became more difficult to tell by looking at individual articles whether stub templates had been added correctly. we need to be sure that categories are added - not seeing a stub category once an edit is complete can (and often does) mean that someone has tampered with the stub template. Having the category visible also makes it far easier for editors to find other similar articles which need work, since the category link provides an instant link to other stubbed articles on related subjects. This is the main way in which stub categories differ from other cleanup categories - they are divided by subject, and as such the visible category increases the chance that a specialist editor editing one article will find related stubs which can also be expanded. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Two things:
  1. Hidden categories can be made visible as the default for editors who want to see them by clicking the appropriate box in your preferences. So you should have no problem seeing them on article pages if they are hidden. The big advantage if they are hidden is that the average user will never see them, and there is no good reason that I know of that an average reader should. These categories are mostly useful to stub-sorters.
  2. The question Alan is presenting is whether the stub categories should be categorized in the category for the subject area. Again, there is no utility for the average reader to see a listing for a non-hidden Category:Actor stubs listed in Category:Actors. I can imagine a newcomer wondering what a stubby actor is.
-- SamuelWantman 06:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
if that's the case, then I'm even more strongly opposed to the idea from the point of view of the stub-sorter's task. It would be a dreadful idea to hide stub categories in the parent permcats - it would make it far less likely that the casual but enthusiastic editor would find stub articles to expand, resulting in stubs not being expanded when they could be. And it's alright to say that any editor can change threir preferences to reveal hidden categories, but would a casual editor know that? I think not. So I definitely oppose this idea. See also EncycloPetey's comments below. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally think hiding stub categories would be a terrible mistake. When I was a newcomer, finding the stub categories was one thing that spured me to writing (and helping to sort stubs). Hiding these categories would slow the development of WP, since newcomers might be arouns for a very long time (especially if they visit only the main namespace) before they discover they have an ability to un-hide these categories and see them. Anons would never have that opportunity, and despite their bad rep for vandalism at times, many anons contribute greatly to the cleanup and advancement of stub articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution (as I suggested when hiding categories was made possible) is for the stub template itself to contain a link to the category ("You can help improve this and [[:Category:Xxx stubs|other similar articles]]...") That's better for everyone - it lets us take the irrelevant stub category away from the category box where it clearly does not belong, while making it even easier for newcomers to find the related stub articles. --Kotniski (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Personally I see this as a solution in search of a problem. This is clearly a way to organize mainspace content and the categories should be visible. For all we know, we have readers who want to exclusively peruse stub articles... –xenotalk 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hardly likely - not as readers, anyway. ("I think I'll look up about species of cat on Wikipedia, but I'm not interested in those whose articles contain more than a few sentences.") These are obvious maintenance categories that oughtn't to be put alongside the categories that really do organize content for readers (as opposed to signalling it for potential editors). The only reason it doesn't matter that much is that stubs are by definition not good articles yet, so these details of presentation are less important, but no reason not to get them right when we have a way of doing it.--Kotniski (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this will make it much harder for us (for example, stub categories would not longer show as sub categories of their parents), and it will have little-to-no net benefit for the reader. Also note EncycloPetey's comments above. Our readers eventually need to become our editors, visible quasi-maintenance categories like this effect that. I think that until the garish maintenance templates (which are far more intrusive) are hidden from the top of the articles, there is no need to hide the stub categories from the bottom. –xenotalk 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
There are alternative proposals here; I'm not sure which one we're talking about. One is to make stub categories hidden; that's the one my suggestion would enable (and I don't see what the objection is - it makes the existence of the stub categories more obvious to new editors, with a link to them in the same message that invites them to edit this article, instead of somewhere else where you don't look for that sort of thing). Another proposal is to stop stub categories being subcategories of main article categories - again, that can be done without detriment to the finding of stub categories, by designing templates to direct people between the main category page and the stub category page (one of the most common fallacies about categories is the idea that you have to put them in each other to get links between them). Again, everyone's a winner with this approach - the stub categories become more prominent (so that satisfies EncycloPetey's concerns), people using categories for what they're meant for aren't distracted by confusing irrelevant categories mixed in with the real ones, and as a bonus, new editors aren't miseducated into thinking that (visible) categories are intended to be used for maintenance purposes.--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Both the proposals you mention would be detrimental to stub-sorters, and reduce the likelihood of casual editors finding stub articles. The status quo works perfectly well and both of the suggestions would reduce its effectiveness. Stub categories are deliberately left at the end of lists of subcategories, so they're hardly "mixed in", and in all my time on Wikipedia, I have never heard of any new editor being under the impression that visible categories are intended for maintenance purposes, so I don't really see that idea has any relevance or likelihood of being a problem. It sounds like you've got two solutions to non-existent problems, neither of which is worth either the effort of implementing or the extra effort it will make for editors or stub sorters. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't think expanding the stub line to include mention of the category is a good idea. This seems to be even more intrusive. I think the way things are done now is fine. Hiding things will just make it more of a PITA to navigate around and harder to determine if a category has a child subcategory for stubs... I highly doubt our readers are bothered by the additional category at the bottom of the page, and furthermore, that they even look at the categories the majority of the time. –xenotalk 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well, I don't think that the current method is a bad thing. It seems like looking for a solution where there is no problem yet. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If they don't look at the categories, that's surely an argument in favour of having the category mentioned in the stub line? Can you make your minds up whether you want people to find these categories or not? If not, then hide them, don't mention them, leave them for stub sorters (who would have the "show hidden categories" option turned on). But if you do want ordinary editors to find them, link to them in the obvious place - where you tell those editors about the stubs. And about finding out whether a category has a subcategory for stubs... You would still find out about that if that information were conveyed by template rather than actually making the stub category a subcategory (in fact that would work much better: (a) the template would always appear on the category page, whereas a subcategory might be shunted off if the category contains more than 200 items; (b) the template could be used on other subcategories too, so you could still find the relevant stub category even if the stubs were upmerged.--Kotniski (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
They are linked in the obvious place - and certainly your formulation of "if you want it, choose the first suggested method, and if you don't want it, choose the other suggested method" isn't particularly helpful when the current way works at least as well as either method, if not better. I still see no point in changing anything to either suggestion, which would require a considerable amount of work for no gain (and likely some considerable loss). It ain't broke - there's no point in trying to fix it. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see rational arguments are being ignored in favour of maintaining the status quo at all costs. Sorry for thinking.--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more that we haven't been presented with a problem that these two solutions purport to solve. Cons outweigh the pros. –xenotalk 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
one problem with linking the category in the template text as you suggest is that a number of templates are linked to 2 categories take {{Ireland-athletics-bio-stub}} do we have the link pointing to Category:Irish sportspeople stubs or Category:European athletics biography stubs or do we make the template text even more complicated and somewhat confusing by linking somehow to both? Waacstats (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

asbox - return of the standardisation question

I came across the Atlantic Array article, and noticed that the two stub messages are misaligned & hence messy. Two questions arise:

  1. Is there any move to standardise the pix (picture size) parameter so as to encourage aligned stub messages
  2. If a stub message has no image, could {{asbox}} be tweaked to indent the message (e.g. by inserting a standard sized blank image)

thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion, and Template talk:asbox might be the best place to ask. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Discussion removed to that location. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, there is plenty of discussion in the archive of this page about the standardised size of stub pictures. In general, ISTR that a width of 30 px is the preferred size, though this has to be varied occasionally to allow for more difficult vertical icons (e.g., the map on Chile-geo-stub). Grutness...wha? 00:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Input needed on rename proposal

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Stub_types_for_deletion#Rename and comment there. Cheers! Grutness...wha? 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Microformats in stubs

A number of stub templates already emit microformats. I have made a request for a change to {{Asbox}} to facilitate their use with less inline HTML markup, but a couple of editors have expressed concerns. It has been suggested that I ask here for additional input (at that page, please). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Navbar on stub templates

I have implemented a new utility which stub-sorters may find helpful. On stub templates, if you choose to enable it, a view/discussion/edit link (v • d • e) will appear on the far right, allowing you to link directly to the stub template. (These links will be hidden to all editors unless they have switched them on.) To enable these links, add the following line to your monobook.css file:

.stub .navbar {display:inline !important;}

Please let me know if you have any comments or questions about this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice - though I note it sometimes causes formatting problems (e.g., on Wairoa_River,_Tasman the v.d.e links are hidden within another template). Any way of fixing that? Grutness...wha? 23:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'm not sure if that can be fixed, but I will ask. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
One way to avoid this happening is by using the clear command so that the stub template appears beneath any other tables. See User:MSGJ/Wairoa River, Tasman for an example. I think it's nicer like this actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
So no opposition to using "clear" then? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot to help keep track of new creations

Please see my request here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI here's the change [2] from last month to this month in templates ending in -stub. –xenotalk 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I used to go through newpages manually every day to do this, until I got ill in February. It was probably one of the factors in me getting stressed enough to get ill - it's an extremely disheartening task. If you don't take them to WSS/D or SFD, you just see them pile up; if you do take them there, you get abused by the creators of them on a regular basis. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

expand/stub warning template

Hi all - while stub-sorting I quite often find new articles which have been created with both {{expand}} and {{stub}} on them. It can be a chore to tell editors why only one should be used each time, so I've created a subst'able template, {{stubexpwarn}} which does the job. Feel free to tweak it and use it wherever you feel appropriate! Grutness...wha? 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A bot could do this

Hi, I noticed that the {{Cuttlefish-stub}} category needs to be populated, and I've been doing some of that myself. The thing is, a bot could do it very easily, simply by looking in Category:Cuttlefish for any stubs. Does such a bot exist and am I wasting my time? Polarpanda (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kamehameha Schools

These schools do not accept students unless they have a hawaiian bloodline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding image used in Nazi stub tag

Hello, WikiProject Stub Sorting. A discussion is underway at Template talk:Nazi-stub regarding the use of the swastika in the stub tag. Please take the time to comment there. Thanks! —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stub or not?

A quick heads up. Is an article in this state considered a Stub? Yes/No? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's far beyond a stub, in my opinion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Under "My Preferences" --> "Gadgets" --> "User Interface Gadgets", there is an option to show an assessmenet of the pages quality in the page header. This will tell you if it is a stub, start, etc. With that on, you can see that the page you indicated is assessed with a 'C' class -- far above a 'Stub'. I will tag articles that are tagged with "Stub" or "Unassessed", but anything above that should not have a stub tag. (Although I have added stub tags at times to "Start" class articles that are clearly too short to deserve even a "Start" classification) Dawynn (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC notification

A Request for Comment which may be of interest to the stub sorting project: Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Automatic Underpopulated / Overpopulated tags

How feasible would it be to automatically add the overpopulated / underpopulated tags? It's bad enough trying to make sure all appropriate categories have the {{WPSS-cat}} designation. Adding the {{popstub}} / {{verylargestub}} tags is just another hassle to maintain. Would it be possible to add these extra designators somehow into the {{WPSS-cat}} template?

My thought here is -- if the category has more than 800 articles, always tag it as very large, until it drops back under 800. If the category has less than 60 articles *and* no sub-categories, then tag it as needing to be populated. Once these are auto-identified, the popstub and verylargestub templates would no longer be necessary. Dawynn (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly possible. Something like {{admin backlog}} does something similar. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Though i would like to point out, that it can only do this for pages in a category, not for subcategories. Those cannot be taken into account automatically. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a necessity to count subcategories. The general rule of thumb is that *any* stub category with 800 or more articles in the category itself would be considered overpopulated. For the overpopulated tag, we would only want to count the current category -- adding in subcategories would defeat the purpose. For the underpopulated, it's my understanding that anything less than 60 is too few *except* for certain categories that *intentionally* diffuse out to their subcategories. So, for the underpopulated, we'd want to verify both less than 60 articles and no subcategories. If we take care of all the subcategories, then the parent categories will automatically have at least 60 articles in their hierarchy.Dawynn (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
{{WPSS-cat/sandbox}} Now adds {{verylargestub}} to categories with more than 800 articles in it, and {{popstub}} to categories with less than 60 articles in it. What do you think? —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I also don't know how to test these things, but I'd be interested to know what this does for Category:geography stubs, or Category:people stubs. I choose these two categories because, right now, each of these has a number of categories, but less than 60 articles. Again, we *don't* want to add {{popstub}} to categories with subcategories -- or we'll be asking to populate categories that are *intended* to exist primarily to group subcategories. Is there some kind of test like CATEGORIESINCATEGORY ?? Dawynn (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Not this does not exist. Either we don't add that one at all, or we have to explicitly disable that on all categories that we "condone". But seeing as people often copy paste these things, that might become a problem. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I could see two possible templates. One for most, as we've developed here. A second could be developed that would be used for the ones where we desire to diffuse. Continue to include the {{verylargestub}}, but skip the {{popstub}}. Perhaps, on the second we could automatically bring in the {{catdiffuse}} template. Maybe even on this second one, include the {{backlog}} template with an option to specify when the backlog template turns on. Dawynn (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
A separate thought for discussion. Stub templates are not supposed to even be created until we have 60 articles. But this is considered a bare minimum. I'm thinking we may want to keep the {{popstub}} template activated until at least 80 articles, or even 100. Anyone else? Thoughts on what should be considered an underpopulated stub category? Dawynn (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)