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 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).

Why does this process still exist?[edit]

Can anyone tell me why we still have this process? Looking at the current (lengthy) page, there have only been a handful of proposals over the last few months. Most of these have come from the same users who then support their own action after the set amount of days have elapsed. I've never used this page, I just go ahead and create stub templates and categories as I see fit. The current WP:CFD process now takes care of stub categories if they're not needed too, so this seems to be WP:BURO. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I take it you mean the proposal process (rather than the stub sorting project as a whole). What you're seeing is those proposals not yet archived, and is therefore only a part of the total number proposed. The current CFD process is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - this page is the fence at the top. Which is better - to say "no, this stub type runs contrary to needs for these reasons", or "good idea, but better if you tweak it to do this", or to have someone create a stub type, add the template to a couple of hundred articles, have it go through a CFD process, and then have to remove those couple of hundred templates additions? Which takes longer? Which uses up editor energy better spent on improving articles? As to just going ahead and making templates and categories, I hope you have read all that page, especially such points as "Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces", "One must be especially careful when being bold with templates", and "Creating new categories or reorganizing the category structure may come to affect many pages." WP:BOLD relates primarily to article edits, as is stressed throughout that page (indeed at one time "be bold" applied only to articles). Grutness...wha? 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There is also a second reason for proposing and getting clearance for stub templates. This project is for stub sorting. In order to sort stubs, we need to know what stub types are available to sort articles into. For that reason, we maintain a list of new stub proposals, so that stub sorters know what template tools are available to them. If people create new stub types without going through that process, how are stub sorters to know how to sort? At least many of the stub types you have created seem to be sensible ones, that don't require us to second-guess what an individual editor might have decided, but where are your new stub types listed? And what of editors who just create new stub types without reference to the naming requirements for stub templates? A lot of the time, we only notice them by chance - there's no way we can sort stubs working on the offchance that someone else hasn't created a different stub type. Without some solid attempt at codifying stub types and listing them as they are created, the whole stub sorting process becomes a shambles. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, to clarify, I mean the proposal process. I've not bothered to read all the pages that you mention, and have no intention to do so. This is an outdated chocolate fireguard of a process, run by a clandestine clique. "The fence at the top" comment is quite laughable. "Oh no! Someone created a template out of process!" Oh the humanity. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
"All the pages I mentioned" listed: WP:BOLD. And it's quite obvious you've not read it. Read it. ALL of it.
As for the ambulance at the top of the cliff, it works. Try "Oh no! Someone created a template out of process! They've added it to 275 articles. We've got editors in half a dozen wikiprojects up in arms about it, complaining that it affects their work! They'll just have to wait and fume while the deletion process goes through." Try "Why aren't you stub sorters sorting things properly? There are a whole host of templates you're not using? What do you mean you didn't know they existed?" Try "Why are these templates named differently to others? It makes trying to add stubs to an article complete guesswork when it comes to template names!"
Other than the reasons I've mentioned earlier which - rather than debating - you've simply decided to mock, the proposal process allows input from respective wikiprojects on what templates they do and don't have a use for. WP:WSS frequently acts as a liaison between different wikiprojects working in related areas - when new stub types are proposed that affect particular projects, they are frequently contacted for input on any new stub types. Far from being a "clique", we try to involve as many groups as possible in the process. Creating stub types out of process makes the creator a clique of one, and creates a lot of work for a whole host of editors across numerous wikiprojects (did you ask for input from relevant wikiprojects before making your new templates? Did you add the new templates you made to the template lists of the wikiprojects that would most likely use them? If not, why not?).
And even if you - as an experienced editor - know enough to respect these precautions, what about newbie editors? Will they know enough to follow the same procedures? If you think they would, you should see some of the stub types that have had to be deleted, especially the hundreds of useless, conflicting, and malformed types which were made before the proposal process was set up. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The proposal process currently consists of User:Buttons to Push Buttons proposing something, then a few days later creating it. Why do I need to get the approval of some self-appointed busy-bodies to create anything (or wait five days for the pleasure)? There's no such vetting on categories or articles. Did I add the templates to the template lists? Of course not - what a waste of time. If it's that important, get a bot to do it. I suspect many newbies have been scared off by this Kafkaesque way of working here and simply don't bother. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where Lugnuts is gettting the idea that WPSS is a clique. The activity among stub sorters has ebbed and flowed over the years and it may not currently be high. But the process is useful. There might be a way to automate some of the functions of stub sorting, though I'm pretty sure that if the list could be updated that way someone would have thought of it. I've been sorting since 2009 and heard discussion, tales of woe, suggestions, implementations, etc. etc. and the vast majority of it has been in good faith.
It sounds to me, Lugnuts, as though you prefer not to use the system as currently implemented, but neither do you wish to work within the system to change it. (If you truly want it to change, you should refrain from using words like "busy-bodies", "laughable", "Kafkaesque", "fence at the top", and "chocolate fireguard".) If you intend to proceed with creating templates and sorting stub srticles without the support of WPSS, why come here to pick an argument? Pegship (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Peg, I don't have an issue with stub-sorting, it's the out-dated pointless proposal process that needs scrapping. And note the "fence at the top comment" wasn't mine - I was quoting the self-appointed chief's reply. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, we don't have a "chief", self-appointed or otherwise. Pegship (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
This weird-ass desire to assign some self-serving motive to me is bizarre but hey, whatever. Wanna know why I've made use of the proposals section? Because that's what the instructions say. Now, is this process byzantine and outdated? Yeah, I would absolutely agree. It's a relic of a bygone era where Wikipedia was active enough to justify it. Go look at how many submissions we had in 2008-10: there was more than enough activity to justify a submissions process which saw ample input and had enough submissions to justify oversight. Those times have changed, and this has limited use now; I would support a proposal to drastically pare back the scope of the proposals page.
So why did I take part in it? Because I believe some level of oversight & tracking is important. Because I hadn't edited regularly in a few years, and felt neither active nor involved enough to offer an alternative. And because I didn't feel bold enough to unilaterally ignore the conventions -- for an inexperienced editor (in recent years, at least) to do that felt potentially unconstructive and disruptive. I didn't think my doing so would be in the best interests of the project. That's all. In the meantime, I posted because I didn't want to create something on just my say-so. And if there was no response, then at least there's some record of where and why I'd created something. Not clear on how the lack of other active editors in this area is my fault, though, both with regards to responses to my submissions and the lack of other submissions to put mine in perspective (seriously, 7 suggestions in the past 6 weeks is not excessive). Posting my suggestions in an open forum was how I felt my contributions to the project would be best served. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
And I suspect people see the "what the instructions say", think to hell with waiting five days, and go ahead and ignore it completely. Five days?! What a joke. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Once again, and more bluntly: what exactly do you want to happen here? You keep pointing out your dissatisfaction with the process - but then make it clear you're not going to follow it, anyway. Why not just go about your business and leave off grousing here? Pegship (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I have not looked at the proposals for ages. Loong time really. I guess there is not much traffic because there is not that much new stub categories anyway. We would hardly ever get this project up and running for this long without some organisation and normalisation. And I presume it needs it to keep going without suffering a noise induced heat death. "Anyone can edit" and "not a bureaucracy" does not mean to kill all and any organization nor to have no process but engaging in edit wars. - Nabla (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Palestine stubs[edit]

Please note that Category:Palestine stubs and its subcat Category:Palestine geography stubs are up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 22#Palestine, as part of a wider nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:25, 23 February 2016 (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? -- (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. -- (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)


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 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)


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)

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)

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.