Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

 

Zobacz też:

Before proposing or creating a new type of stub, please read
How to propose a new stub type.
For discussion about creation of stub types or the hierarchy of stub categories,
see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals.
Archive
Archives

Contents

Changes to Opera stubs

I understand changes are being made to opera stubs. Can you please tell the editors at the Opera Project what you propose to do? Up to now one simple stub has been used (most of the time) and that has met the needs of editors perfectly well. Changes to stubs, especially the creation of new ones, can cause problems with categorization etc. Stubs are not just for aesthetic appreciation! Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Outreach

Grutness raises a good point in the ongoing Opera stub split discussion which I feel deserves further discussion: Perhaps no-one involved in opera editing said that the stub category was close to being broken because none of them are regularly involved in stub sorting. If they had been, they would probably have proposed some form of split here themselves. It got me thinking we could do more regular outreach so other WikiProjects understand what WikiProject Stub sorting does before a lot of their stubs are sorted. The way I got involved in stub sorting was that I saw a lot of stubs on my watchlist sorted and wondered what was going on. Although they shouldn't be, a lot of folk are possessive over pages on their watchlist. I was thinking we could post a standard message on the WPJ talkpages every six months (say) and bumpf up the pages here about what WPSS does. Projects who are already involved we could either put on an exclusion list or post a different standard message. SeveroTC 10:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good plan. I aim to canvass for any time any time I propose anything a related WPJ might consider "novel", but frequently the will falters. We might want to try working our way down the "by size" list, making sure that we've had at least some sort of contact with related projects, even if we aren't currently proposing a split. Something on the lines of, "you have a stub type that's so oversized we haven't worked out what to do with it for the past year and a half", or "you have a large but not (yet) oversized stub type; at some point you may wish to consider splitting it up".
One idea I had -- but never did anything to implement -- is that where we're starting with an existing oversized type, we have some sort of "tracking template" on the category talk page -- or perhaps even integrated in some way into {{verylargestub}}. Basically indicating whether a splitting scheme is needed, proposed, approved, underway, etc, ideally linking into the relevant discussion. It would be useful for our own purposes, and it would also provide a "heads up" for anyone actually bothering to use the category page in person. It might be better than explicit "come comment" messages, which often fall on deaf ears, result in a discussion in the "wrong" place, or else a "let's not bother" grade of response. Alai (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
sounds like a good idea. A standard message to Wprojects when they are likely to be involved in a splitting process is easily templatised, too (something like {{Projectstubannounce|foo stubs}} returning "Hi - a debate is about to start at WP:WSS/P about a possible split of Cat:Foo stubs into subtypes..."). That could easily be placed on WProject talk pages. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
My story is very similar to Severo's and I think outreach is a very good idea. Prioritizing oversized stub categories' wikiprojects is a good idea, but also those projects with lots of stub categories. The api.php and Category pages have made it much easier to see category sizes. I wish it was easier to make "active" pages on the wiki without admin (to add global javascript) or developer (to tweak special pages) status. I wrote some XSLT that snags things from api.php and combines them into a report, but it has to have a base document to run from, which requires some sort of external link or javascript. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
WPJs with lots of stub types are likely to be somewhat more aware of the whole splitting/whoops-too-big routine. But if they haven't done it for a while, or indeed if they have the opposite "problem" (lots of marginally-sized stubcats), it might be a good idea to remind them of the size clause of the stub guidelines. What sort of "active" page had you in mind? Something to track size status with respect to the size threshold? It'd be possible to handle that by bot... Alai (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. One important part about WPJs is that the people involved actually change, so talking to them every 6 months to a year is probably a good idea, just to introduce our project to the new members. As far as active pages, yup. I make pages that load a little slowly (5-10 seconds), but are "live" in that they query api.php to get the information. I usually just make them standalone webpages, since it is hard to make them as wikipedia pages (a little javascript or xslt or something is usually needed to combine/filter/sort the information). Definitely they can be done by running a bot, but I don't have a bot account, and it seems like there is a lot of red tape involved for each task (I'm happy to comment on a bot approval if you want to have AlaiBot do this). JackSchmidt (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A proposal has come up at Bot requests to make WikiProjects automatically aware of happenings at AfD, Featured/Good articles and peer reviews when an article is connected to their project scope. I've suggested happenings here are built into this as well. I think it would be good to get WPSS stuff onto the same newsfeed as it were. SeveroTC 07:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates in template scoping statements?

Does anyone see any logic whatsoever in edits like this? This looks like a programme to remove overlinking from the article space that's wandered somewhat blithely into the arena of stub templates. Alai (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like another AWB bug. I wish they would deactivate their more brutal fixes outside of the main space. I think we've all seen AWB attack a stub category page (for instance, taking a nice list of refinements of the stub category and moving them all to the bottom). Looking at Lightmouse's contribs, there are quite a few that might need to be reverted. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
1980s probably shouldn't be linked there... either way as AWB is user controlled you can't blame the programme for something an editor has decided to do. SeveroTC 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's user controlled but there are a set of fixes it will offer to do, which the user only needs to cast a quick eye over (like changine [[Cat|cats]] to [[cat]]s, so it's unhelpful if this set includes things which on balance shouldn't be done! But, like Severo, I'm not sure why or whether 1980s needs to be linked within stub description. PamD (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"Need" would certainly be putting rather strongly: it's not a huge deal either way. But the norm seems to be to link defining elements of the scoping statement, and I certainly don't see a need to remove them: I certainly don't think that it's wise to apply article-text MoS considerations unqualifiedly here. Alai (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Are there any wires in the area, like a TV wire? Is there an A-frame? 24.109.207.40 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think what the IP is suggesting is that the problem User:Alai pointed out could be solved, if only there were a type of virtual A-frame and some connecting wire. It's not at all a bad suggestion, technically speaking, but it's impractical for use on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could construct a Whisper Gold? Swamilive (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly inclined to believe you're both, in technical terms, attempting to pull our legs. If not, you're making yourself distinctly obscure. Alai (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates - Linking to a generic decade isn't really contextual and is discouraged. Linking to something like 1980s in Journalism would be appropriate, if it existed. JohnnyMrNinja 06:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

id="stub"

copied across from WP talk:Stub. Grutness...wha?

Because the box standard for stub templates is apparently to wrap them inside a <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">, XHTML errors are generated by pages containing multiple stub templates, as all id attributes on a page should be unique. This concern was raised at the village pump and I offered two possible solutions, so I invite everyone interested in stub template formats to comment here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Atomican/Wikicite+

Copied across from Category talk: Stubs

I have been testing this out and I recommend other stub sorters test and try it out as well. I've found it to be of great use thus far. Its simple and easy to use, and is being updated constantly. — MaggotSyn 09:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I spoke to Atomican while he was testing this, and it sounded quite useful at the time. It may still be in "beta mode" though, so there may well be a couple of glitches still with it. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The main issue at the moment is getting all the stub tags into the program (my current build has nearly a thousand, there's lots more to go). I do hope members of StubSorting will find it useful. It's written with .Net 3.5 but it should work with 2.0 or 3.0 --Atomican (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with SfD template

Pardon me if this has already been addressed, but the SfD template does not appear to link to the discussion, just to WP:SFD. So when somebody comes across an old one, and clicks to find out more, they get nothing (as I did [1]). Is there a particular reason for this? JohnnyMrNinja 06:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that individual deletion discussions don't have their own subpages. If they did, it would be far easier to link them. There are proposals underway (or at least, there were some recently, IIRC) to make all xFD debates individual transclusions. if that happens it will become pretty easy to link the SfD templates directly to the individual debates. Whether it happens or not, there's little point in changing this until we know the outcome of that proposal (saves potentially having to change things twice in quick succession). Grutness...wha? 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
However, we could have them link to the individual day subpages fairly easily. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Salem-stub}}

This stub is being used by the WP:Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force WP:SWTF. There are only 35 stubs using this template. What Category do I put it under, Christianity or United States History?. Kathleen.wright5 23:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

US history, I'd say - the witch trials had far more to do with mass hysteria than they did with Christianity. Mind you, ideally the stub shouldn't exist at all - it doesn't "do what it says on the can", since it's not a stub about Salem per se, and since it's not the WikiProject's main stub template it should have 60 stubs to have its own category. Even if that same threshold is used on task forces (which is still open to some question), those "35 stubs" included the template itself, a WikiProject link, and five articles that werfe clearly no longer stubs - it is used on just 28 real stubs.. Unfortunately, when it was brought to SfD last year it was kept by a very slim margin, due largely to !votes from the SWTTF. It still needs cleaning up and still has a non-standard redirect ({{Salem Stub}}). It may be time to return to SfD with it. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification templates

I've finally got round to making a suite of templates for notifying the creators of unproposed stub types that their creations have been either sent to SfD or reported on WSS/D. Have a look at {{Sfdnotify1}}, {{Sfdnotify2}} and {{Wssdnotify}} and tell me what you think. It';s likely someone with more technical skill could parameterise the sfd ones so that only one template is needed, but I'll leave that to someone more skilled than I am. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany film stub

It seems that the {{Germany-film-stub}} is somehow different from {{France-film-stub}} and the like, with the result that Germany-film-stub articles go into Category:Film stubs. I haven't investigated what's wrong or different, can someone do this? shreevatsa (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, this was a non-issue. User:Pegship explained it to me. shreevatsa (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Whew! I've just spent the better part of the last two days examining each of the 350ish articles in Category:Film stubs, moving a bit over 200 of them to a stub more specific than {{film-stub}}, fixing a whole bunch of typos and formatting errors, then tagging the remaining 140ish articles with country-specific stub tags to make future sorting easier. Oh, and while I was in the midst of this project User:Navy Blue took it upon himself to create {{Cuba-film-stub}} without any trace of discussion and a clearly insufficient number of articles for even a unique template, never mind a stub category. And, yes, he left the WPSS template at the top as if the proper procedures had been followed. This bears investigation or at least a strongly worded note from a person less tired than I am at the moment. - Dravecky (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Already there! Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. SeveroTC 19:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup :) I go through Special:Newpages template list everty day to see what unexpected new stub templates turn up (that's why my name crops up so frequently at SFD and WSS/D :) Grutness...wha? 02:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Music theory stubs

Hi there. I am from the recently developed Wikiproject Music Theory and we are currently in the process of organizing basic formats for the project. I was wondering if this project would like to help/ advice us in creating and/or revising exsisting stubs related to our project. One current concern is that the exsisting Category:Music theory stubs includes articles not related to Western music. Our project scope only concerns Western music and we would like a new stub organization to reflect that division. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for engaging here! I'm probably a bit unsophisticated with this, but I don't see what's wrong with Cat:Music theory stubs. It seems to me your project is incorrectly titled if it's scope is limited, maybe it should be WikiProject Western music theory (note capitalisation) instead? SeveroTC 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The term music theory is technically a "western designation" in itself and one could argue that it shouldn't be applied to music notation and terminology outside of western culture (as some ethnomusicologists have done). Within American and European Conservatories the study of music theory encompasses a set knowledge base with which this project reflects. The musical structure and terms used in other cultures is generally relegated to the area of ethnomusicology. Similar divisions already exist in other wikiprojects. The classical music project only covers Western Music and does not cover Indian classical music and the opera project does not cover Chinese Opera. Nrswanson (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Music Theory currently only has one member. Maybe it would be better to wait and see if it develops before creating a new stub? --Kleinzach 03:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Nrswanson, and welcome to WikiProjectLand! Once your project is more active and defined, and there are sufficient stubs within its scope, a stub type may certainly be in order. Until then, how about a talk page banner? This would help your project track articles until a stub type is appropriate, and has the added advantage of optional assessment parameters. Good luck - Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub Sorting Bot

Ok everyone. I'm actively seeking out a bot creator, to help make a bot for this page, and the project. I know in the past there have been attempts at contemplating a bot, to alleviate the work load. I now think I have come up with a decent idea. The bots functions:

With this, as soon as an editor puts an article into a specific category, it will sort to its rightful place. I'm hoping it will even take care of sorting the son and daughter (for instance: {{bio-stub}} --> {{Historian-stub}} --> {{Art-historian-stub}}) stubs. But who knows. Any thoughts? Synergy 21:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversation is what I want firstly so... let me address each question one at a time.
As for the Croughton/London law: The bot won't pick up on it, since it shouldn't have a stub tag on it in the first place. Synergy 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's just the point - some of them will, and some of them won't, so the idea of having the bot check for length and removing stubs from any that are "too long" doesn't fly. And as for the navboxes, infoboxes and the like, my commentsinclude lists of examples, which don't follow templated code - check my example of Esplanade again - it's still (marginally) a stub, despite having a lot of untemplated text. With regard to the "best categories" situation, it should be possible to find in the archives of this or related pages some early examples of overstubbing, where it was difficult even for a human editor to work out which stub templates were most appropriate. I'm sure a considerable amount of this work could be done by bot as you suggest - it's simply working out what can and what can't and trying to set limits accordingly. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But of course. I am open to suggestions.... Synergy 01:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sad news

This is sad news for WP:WSS, IMO... Grutness...wha? 05:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is not good. I hate how some of the most petty disputes (U.S. vs US, seriously?) can blow up into such enormous battles on Wikipedia. Caerwine will be missed. - Dravecky (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't 1910s novel stubs a subcat of 1900s novel stubs, etc?

Apologies for what might be a perennial question, but why aren't some of these temporally-related stub categories organized like the non-stub ones? For instance, 1910s novels is a sub-category of 1900s novels—they're not both directly under novels (or novels by year). Why do the corresponding stub categories have a flatter structure? Thanks, and sorry if this is answered in some obvious place that I missed. —johndburger 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1910s novels is properly a sub-category of Category:20th century novels, not 1900s novels. Perhaps the 10 stub cats for the 20th century could be placed under a Category:20th century novel stubs cat to mirror the Category:19th century novel stubs cat but I'm uncertain that this level of organization is required. - Dravecky (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I see now—there are stub cats for the decades in the the 20th century, but none for the 20th century itself. But there is one for the whole of the 19th century, though none for those decades, hence my confusion. Never mind, and thanks! —johndburger 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Category type

Hi, I have just come across an article with 2 stubs on it {{powerstation-stub}} and {{SouthYorkshire-geo-stub}}. The first places the article into a hidden category, the second a normal category. Should the subs be in hidden categories or not? Keith D (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely NOT hidden. There's no point in trying to get editors to edit stubs if they can't navigate to the stub categoy to find them. It's also far easier for stub sorters to check that templates have been formed correctly if the categories are visible. I've fixed it up. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we had one editor who decided to hide a few cleanup categories - I've fixed the half a dozen or so changes (s)he made. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for quick response. I will keep an eye out for any others that appear as hidden. Keith D (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

National stubs

There are a squillion UK stub categories but hardly any of them are in Category:United Kingdom stubs. Shall I fix this? And if so, does the same go for other countries? -- Earle Martin t/c 22:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which ones are not in Cat:United Kingdom stubs and it's subcats? Random ones I pick are all in a UK stub subcat. SeveroTC 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
{{UK-newspaper-stub}}}}, for one. PamD (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Having done a full search, the following UK stub categories are not in Cat:United Kingdom stubs:

They should all be in the most relevant subcategory of Cat:United Kingdom stubs. The same would apply to any other national stub category. SeveroTC 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tool for Marking Articles as Stubs?

I was wondering, is there a tool that can be used to quickly mark articles as stubs, and so on? Something along the lines of Twinkle or Friendly? It would be incredibly useful. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment / performing arts

There seems to be a stub-less gap here: I struggled to classify Cardistry, before deciding it wasn't actually a stub. But seriously, folks, should there be a new stub in this sort of area, to include circus skills etc too. I don't know how I would set about finding 60 stubs which belong there because they would be so widely scattered among desperate near-miss categories. Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... maybe, though there is a stub type for stage magic (as opposed to occult magick), which that one could have used - {{Magic-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that... then noticed someone had already left a hidden comment beside the {{stub}} tag, saying: "No, this is not a magic stub, and there seems to be not performing arts stub category. Not sure how that is possible..."! The article stresses that it's not about illusion, just impressive techniques. PamD (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I quite understand the commenter's point - yes, it's about impressive techniques, but it's about impressive techniques used in the creation of stage magic, so it would still have been the right stub to use. Grutness...wha? 13:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the article makes it clear it isn't about techniques used in stage magic, but stand-alone feats of dexterity. PamD (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
What about {{performance-stub}} for various performance techniques? It could be a child of Cat:Performing arts. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems a useful suggestion. PamD (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)