#redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
Some Wikipedians have formed a Wikipedia:WikiProject to better organize and categorize Wikipedia:stub and stub categories. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. Everyone is welcome to help, for more information please inquire on the talk: and see the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#To_Do_List there. ==Project goals== This WikiPedia:WikiProject aims primarily to sort stubs in the Wikipedia. To do this the project has the following aims: # Better categorization of stubs # Make sure that stub sorting does not get messy # Ensure that stub categories attempt to remain at moderate sizes ==Why is stub sorting important?== Stub articles are generally short and/or below the high Wikipedia standard. If they are not sorted, then it means they are less likely to be edited to higher quality as nobody necessarily knows the page is in need of attention. Even if a page is sorted into a category indicating it is in need of attention, such as the articles needing a Wikipedia:Cleanup_resources, it is still not as good as putting it in a stub category. This is because stub categories attract experts in specific areas (chemists can see chemistry stubs for example), whereas generic cleanup/Wikipedia:Deadend_pages categories do not. ==Parentage== The parent of this WikiProject is Wikipedia:Maintenance. ==Structure== See Wikipedia:Stub categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types for more information on existing stub types. === Policy and criteria=== *To see the current policy and other information on stub sorting and stubs in general, see: Wikipedia:Stub. ===New stubs=== *To propose new stub categories/templates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Proposed new stubs. *List newly found stub categories/templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered_stub_categories. ==Important Article Links== * Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB) * Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (WP:WSS/ST) - lists all stub categories (with statistics). * Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (WP:WSS/C) - Proposals and clarifications on stub types. * Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion (WP:SFD) - For deletion of stub templates and categories. * Wikipedia:Stub categories#Stub_Category_Creation_Guidelines * Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs * :Category:Stub categories ''See also:'' :Category:WikiProject Stub sorting ==Participants== ''The full list was getting too long for this page. It has been moved to :Category:WikiProject Stub sorting participants. Current number of participants is 93''. ==Stub sorting methods== ===General rules=== * To put an article into a stub category, if it is a chemistry stub for example, change the existing stub tag (if it exists) from to .
* When sorted leave an edit summary like this: Stub-sorting. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting .
* It is common practice to put the tag at the very bottom of the article.
* No stub article should sit in only the stub category as this association is meant to be temporary. If no other category is listed, please add the standard article category that is the parent of the stub category.
* Please remember to use the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types to make sure you are putting stubs in the correct category.
* If the article is no longer a stub, remove the stub template. Refer to Wikipedia:Stub for more information on this matter.
===Things to do===
* The biggest stub subcategory right now is :Category:People stubs (). Subdividing bio-stub is the current main focus of the WSS. See the category page and/or WP:WSS/ST for the current list of available bio-subcategories.
* Basic s have been cleared out, but the :Category:Stubs still needs watching so unsorted stubs don't pile up again.
* All other stub categories need watching as well, to sort out mislabeled stubs and subsort them further, if applicable.
* Stubs without any stub tags can be found on Special:Shortpages, Special:Newpages or Special:Randompage.
* If a large (> 800 stubs) stub subcategory interests you and there aren't yet any subcategories in it, propose some subcategories at WP:WSS/C.
* If you find new stub templates, list them at WP:WSS/C for discussion.
==Infoboxes==
None
WikiProjects
WikiProject Stub sorting
For creation, deletion or merge of stubs,
see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria!
The same page is for discussion of the hierarchy of stub categories. Archives material is available here by date of cleanup: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 4. ==To Do List== {| style="background:transparent; margin-left:15px" |- ! rowspan="2" valign="top" | ! align="left" | Wikipedia:To-do list for Wikipedia:[{{localurl::|action=purge}} :] | align="right" | [{{localurl::/to_do|action=edit}} edit this list] - [{{localurl::/to_do|action=watch}} add to watchlist] |- | colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#efefef; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" | {{:/to_do}} |} To do To do, priority undefined == Links to WikiProjects in stub messages == I've just had someone revert my link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One in the , citing a prior, similar, revert by User:Rdsmith4 with the edit summary "WikiProject shouldn't be linked from the article namespace". Given that a ton of stubs have links to relevant WikiProjects (IMO, a good thing), and that I can't find any precedent here or at Wikipedia:WikiProject, I'm reverting, but I would like some clarification if there is anything wrong. [Crossposted to /Policy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ] - User:SoM 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) :So far hasn't insulted anyone... Yet it was far more extensive a change. Circeus 16:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) :In the interest of centralized discussion, I suggest any further comments go to Wikipedia talk:Stub sorting policy#Links to WikiProjects in stub messages. 13:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) I can't help but feel that the new look to could have been better, though - a link to the WikiProject, yes, but this doesn't do that directly, and looks a bit too wordy. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 07:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Gawd, that stub message may be longer than some computer game substubs!. My personal opinion is that it would be nice to include links to the appropriate WikiProjects for those that want the links, but the can easily be "hidden" as a link under the word Wikipedia in the second sentence of the standard stub format ("You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"). Then if they want, they can also include a template at the top of the article's Talk page, like some WikiProjects have, that says this article is part of WikiProject XYZ... User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 11:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::This gets to the scope of WP:WSS. I was going to suggest some things around "ownership" of various aspects of stub content, but then it hit me ... this is ''Wikipedia'' where "ownership" is an understandably dirty word. The question is whether we would want to write into the "charter" something about stub message content or not. With regard to the links related to the "help Wikipedia" text, it's not a bad idea to have a Wikiproject link under that text as it helps to focus assistance into the group efforts of the Project. As for length of stub messages ... for my money, anything that has to wrap on my screen is too long; that's about 150 characters or usually <25 words. User:Ceyockey 23:45, 2005 May 24 (UTC) :If we do, I'd limit it by number of words rather than characters, simply because some subject names are pretty long. Things like are about as short as they can be and are still pretty lengthy in terms of characters. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 02:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC) == Overhaul of stub page structure. == User:Grutness mentioned this on Wikipedia talk:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories: ::''I'm beginning to wonder if the WP pages for Stub sorting need a bit of an overhaul anyway - it's forked a bit and grown into a bit of a tangle. But I suspect (shudder) that we'd need a special new page to discuss whether an overhaul is needed!'' It's true. We need a restructuring and rewriting of many pages that relate to stub sorting and stubs in general. To seed the discussion, here's a list of stub-related pages: *Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub *Wikipedia:Perfect stub article *Wikipedia:Stub categories *WP:WSS **Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy **Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria **Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines **Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types *:Category:Stub categories *Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories *Wikipedia:template messages/Stubs I'm sure there are more, so please add to this list. For starters, I think Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and Wikipedia:Perfect stub article have to be rewritten to make stub sorting more apparent (they still recommend using ). Wikipedia:Stub categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types are essentially the same. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria doesn't do what the name says. Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines overlap significantly. Now, I don't want to make this more of a campaign than it has to be, and I myself have learned to navigate these pages, but in my opinion it would be nice to streamline this whole business a bit more to make it more accessible, and a procedure which is less confusing for the casual editor means less work for stub sorters in the long run. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 15:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I agree, I tried to sort out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting page a few weeks ago, it had no direction, no explanation of why or even how to sort stubs etc. I think making people aware of sorting into categories rather than just a plain old stub is really important. User:Bluemoose 16:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::It is a mess. I don't think I'm being ''too'' egotistical to say that I do a hell of a lot of stub sorting, and yet I didn't know about Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy until about a week ago. There needs - at the minimum - to be some more sign-posting of what is where. And more usefully still, some kind of overhaul of the whole system. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 09:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: I am sort of trying to start that, but you guys have to help me on some way, even if it is by proposing something completely different from what I have. --User:Sn0wflake 19:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I don't have much time for this right now, but I think I'll get to it in a few days -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 12:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I tried to write something up on User:Grm_wnr/Stub page draft, but realized it had already become to long and specific. I'm posting it here anyway, because I didn't want to throw it away and maybe some parts of it can be salvaged for a better page. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 16:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I found your draft to be very suitable. It's only flaw, as I see it, is being a little verbose at one point or another. If there are no objections, I will work upon it and post my version below the first draft so that we (the community. Get involved, everyone!) can discuss this further. --User:Sn0wflake 16:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::: If you'll be working in User:Grm_wnr space for drafting maybe we should move the discussion to it's talk page and leave a note here for folks to follow. I totally agree that there's a need to clarify and focus the stub page(s). This is really a good idea. User:Rx StrangeLove 17:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I moved everything over to here. I just finished the third draft, based upon grm's work. It's starting to look good... still needs work, though. --User:Sn0wflake 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ::::: If SfD makes it through Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) it should probably be added to the Centralization project: third draft section below. I'm also wondering if we should alter the substub section to reflect the talk around eliminating substub usage. Perhaps take this opportunity to eliminate them as a category, it sounds like that's what was being talked about below see: substubs (again). Personally I'd like to see them go away, though it'd take some work emptying it out....which Grutness has been hard at work doing already....I'd be willing to help out with that User:Rx StrangeLove 01:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Proposal for yet more stub templates == *Engineering *Crime :To whoever didn't sign this - please read the note at the top of the page! New stubs should be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. Anyway, why not use the currently existing and , which seem to be exactly the ones you're looking for? User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) * I didn't propose it, but I think an 'Engineering' stub would be a good idea. There are a lot of things that are engineering related that don't fit neatly into , , ''or'' . --User:Dcfleck 16:46, 2005 May 1 (UTC) ==Sportbio-stub - sl. change== I've made a slight change to the wording of , from "...biographical article about a sportsperson" to "biographical article relating to sport...". The reason is that I've found a few stubs relating to racehorses, and this seems the best category to put them in... User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 06:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I have moved this up for the sake of organization, if you find you must, then please move it back to the bottom of the page. --User:Sn0wflake 01:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Sounds like a good revision, Grutness. I suppose we couldn't say "horses are people too" and leave it at that :) User:Ceyockey 23:00, 2005 May 9 (UTC) ==Creating new stub categories section== I took a shot at this section, I'm hoping it's close to what people were looking for. Please take a look and make whatever changes you see fit, I User:Grm_wnr/Stub_page_draft Categorization#How_to_create_categories from several Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Guidelines#Creation_of_stub_categories. I'm also happy to make whatever changes people would like...especially the "how to" section on creating the categories, something I'm a little hazy on. It might not be very clear, as you can see I refered to the help article on category creation instead of explaining it here. User:Rx StrangeLove 17:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :I like it, but the wording sucks. ;) Now seriously, it could do with some rewriting, but it's looking quite good. This basically leads us to our final issue: stub deletion system... I really don't know how to handle that. Help, anyone? --User:Sn0wflake 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::Are you thinking that we'd need a Sfd page? Othwise we could run them through categories for deletion. Or maybe do them as a separate section on the Creation of stub categories page? I suppose for consistency sake we should do a SfD page like the others, though it wouldn't see much action. And then we'd have to replace the deleted stubs, we probably wouldn't want to redirect them would we? User:Rx StrangeLove 01:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::::(I've just remembered TfD, I forgot about that. That makes most of the comments above pointless, nevermind :) User:Rx StrangeLove 04:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::I agree it could use some tuning for sure, I had to fit it in between real life Sunday morning. I'll take it back and do some touching up, see what I can do. User:Rx StrangeLove 21:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::I made another pass at it, but there's still work to be on it, especially at the end in the category section. I'll work on that next, I'm not sure how much "how to" material to include in the category part. What makes sense to you guys? User:Rx StrangeLove 00:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :Re: the idea of an Sfd page - I like the idea personally. At the moment we vote on stubs ar WSS/Criteria, ''then'' at tfd, and ''again'' at cfd. Doing the whole job in one pass would be a great advantage. As for "wouldn't see much action", over half the templates on tfd at the moment are stub templates! I'm beginning to thing that creation of a stub template is seen as a rite of passage for new wikipedians! Re: the "how to" part on stub categories, creators of stub templates need to know how to name the new category and which parent categories to put it in ( links to :Category:Foo-related stubs, which is a subcategory of both :Category:Stub categories and :Category:Foo). User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 04:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::I agree about Sfd, if it would streamline the process I'm all for it, especially after what User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse found. Hopefully getting the current stubs culled out, the proposal process will help limit how much we have to use SfD but there's no way to make the proposal process mandatory (is there?) so we shall see. I also agree about including category creation, I'll expand the "how to" section. User:Rx StrangeLove 15:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I added some more material to the category section at the end, take a look and let me know how it looks, I'm open to suggestions. I still need to add a part about adding the stub template to the stub lists so people see them. User:Rx StrangeLove 05:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I made a slight amendment - you said :category:stub when you meant :category:stub categories. Other than that, it looks about right. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::SfD would probably be quite useful, but we have to make sure that it doesn't require several weeks for the process to come to an end. As I see it, a week should be enough. --User:Sn0wflake 19:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::A week sounds fine to me, too. Should there be the option of speedy-delete for patent nonsense like banana-stub and ? User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 01:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :It would probably be quite useful, but I am under the impression that there would likely be some objections from outside of the project. Just my opinion, though. --User:Sn0wflake 01:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::Yeah, you're probably right there. Ah well, we can probably live with any ridiculous templates for a week... User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 04:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::We don't know until we try it. To make a point, we should really flood TfD and CfD with the new stubs Grutness just found. I think that would raise the chances a lot :) -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 09:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::) There are already people at tfd getting pretty fed up with deleting stub templatess - they don't seem to care at cfd, but the comments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Template_stub are telling. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 12:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
::I was bold: community concensus for or against SfD can now be established on Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#WP:SfD_.28Stub_messages_for_deletion.29. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 16:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
== Articles improperly tagged as stubs ==
Hi,
I'm here because I think you might be interested in a User:Triddle/stubsensor/20050421 I generated with User:Triddle/stubsensor, something I've recently come up with. Stubsensor finds articles that are labeled as stubs and spits out the largest of them. The first three articles out of the report are Niqqud, Christian Opposition to Anti-Semitism, and Women in India. All 3 labeled as stubs and all 3 clearly are not stubs.
I thought maybe you guys would be interested because you donate your efforts at fixing other portions of the stub system. If you are see the top 200 at User:Triddle/stubsensor/20050421. I've already fixed about 40 of them myself and I'm pretty sure I took care of nearly all the false positives when it comes to stub detection. User:Triddle 19:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
:Good job there, Triddle. We often bump into such articles during Category:stub hunts, but it must be quite a pain to find those on specific categories. Your work is appreciated. Are the entries to be removed from the list once they are handled? --User:Sn0wflake 19:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
::I don't quite understand what the question is so I'll answer the two I think it could be: 1) is the list going to be updated automatically once the fix has been performed? No, there would be a lag time of at least a half a week to two weeks (depending on the sql dump schedule). 2) is it ok to remove items from that list if they have been fixed by hand? Yes, please, be my guest =) Also I only put the top 200 in there because its short; I've looked around article 5,000 in that list (Sutherland, Nasal irrigation) and it still seems to be going strong. Would you be interested in the complete list of 5,000 articles? Or anything inbetween? User:Triddle 19:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
:::I did some more work and put up a report of the top 2,000 in the same location. I'm going to keep going myself from 2001 and up. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions or have an idea for something I can do to help you guys out. Take it easy. User:Triddle 00:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
::It ''is'' a good idea - as long as we keep in mind that stubbishness and article length aren't completely correlated. You can still have fairly long articles which have a stubby feel, remember. Good work, though Triddle - it should be very helpful. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 04:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:Looks good, adding Not a stub; see User:Triddle/stubsensor to the edit summary will encourage more people to help. User:Onco p53 05:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
== Project Parent? ==
There is a newly created Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates. Should this be listed as one of the parents of Stub-sorting WikiProject? Also, the currently lists "parent" Wikipedia:Maintenance doesn't have any information on the Stub-sorting WikiProject, which seems like a logical place to have info in the WP:WSS. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 12:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
: Sounds like a good idea, unless there are objections, I can add a listing to Wikipedia:Maintenance. User:Rx StrangeLove 00:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
== Finishing touches ==
With substubs on the final days of their existence and a SfD proposal pending (and no strong objection, apparently) I think it's probably time to get started on the final draft of the new ''referece article'' for stubs. I will write it as if these two things had already come true, and then we can discuss it. I will probably get it ready by the end of today. Cheers. --User:Sn0wflake 18:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for taking this on, looking forward to seeing it! User:Rx StrangeLove 01:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, everyone. I will try to get it done ASAP. --User:Sn0wflake 18:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
==Good idea for sfd==
A good idea (IMHO) has been suggested about sfd by User:Korath at the VP - that if sfd goes ahead, both cfd and tfd should be notified of any current stubs up for deletion, sort of along the lines of a posting at both saying "The proposed deletion of toenail-stub is now being debated - all comments should be addressed to Wikipedia: Stubs for deletion#Toenail-stub." I think this might be a good way of mollifying anyone who thinks that tfd and cfd might somehow miss out on some juicy debates. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 23:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
:Or maybe some sort of daily digest that would list the new SfD's each day at CfD/TfD that each nominator would add to? That might take up a little less space. I'm assuming the thought was that each nominator would post a note at CfD/TfD when adding a listing to SfD. User:Rx StrangeLove 02:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
::I find Rx's idea quite plausible. An article containing the stubs added on the day could be linked from both TfD and CfD, so that there would be no need of doing things twice. --User:Sn0wflake 02:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Erm. That actually wasn't what I was suggesting at all. I meant something more along the lines of: if things end up being decided only on TfD, then :Category:Toenail stubs should get a variant of the That would definitely be a reasonable option - it would have a similar effect without much of the effort that deletion might involve. On second thoughts, given that quite a number of editors seem to be putting both and a subcategory of stub template onto short articles, it wouldn't help at all. All you'd get is the same article in both :Category:stub and one of its subcategories. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 08:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
:The only real use for a substub category is to mark the potential vfd or merge canidates. This function is better served by the various Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. As a result I see no reason to keep the substub category. This just leaves the problem of how to wean the Wikipedia community off of . --''User: Allen3'' User talk:Allen3 12:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
::Update ''there are currently no substubs''. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 12:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
:I totally agree, and now's the perfect time. The category is empty (!!Nice job Grutness!!), and we're updating the stub page, the substub section in (Centralization project: third draft) will help publicize the change. There will be some ongoing maintenance/cleanup as usage tapers off, but we can handle that. The comments above are all right on. There's a fair amount of overlap between stubs and substubs as it is, there's really no need for both of them. The stub tag and a cleanup templete where needed should be sufficient User:Rx StrangeLove 13:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
::thanks, but it wasn't just me... Allen3 and others did a lot of the work. It has been gratifying opening up Wikipedia in the mornings and seeing fewer substubs than when I looked the previous day! User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 23:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
:I have nothing to add to the discussion, so I will merely make my support for this move clear. Support. --User:Sn0wflake 18:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
===Substubs===
Well done with all the hard work on categorizing the stubs! I've seen that there are no longer any substubs, so am I correct to state that that category and template can now be deprecated? User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Every day for the last three days I've thought "shall I or shan't I list substubs today?" I'm glad someone else has had the boldness I lacked! User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 01:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
:*Several people are voting to keep because they say the WikiProject Stub Sorting uses it. Since you ''are'' that project, please join the vote on WP:CFD and WP:TFD. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 08:03, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Erm...I'll take that as a compliment! I have - but a lot of the "keep" votes seem to be because stubs-osorters for the most part aren't voting...it'd be great if everyone here who has an opinion on substubs voiced that opinion at tfd and cfd! User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 05:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
:* You = plural :) Anyway consensus seems to be delete for now, which is a good thing. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 13:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
::I ''thought'' that's what you meant, but my ego took over :) User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness
:Voting is over with 20 Deletes, 8 Keeps and 3 Redirects. Template was not deleted. Can we just redirect it to ? That way, you can still get the functionality of substub by clicking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3ASubstub],but none of the category fragmentation occurs. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 07:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
::"Template was not deleted" - template has ''yet to be'' deleted. To quote the tfd page:
:::'' - Discussion at Template talk:Substub#Vote for deletion. I think is a mandate for delete, especially since many of the keep votes were "this should be left to the WikiProject", and the wikiproject was voting delete. Joe D (t) 19:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC) ''
::It's currently in the holding pen at the bottom of the page, and may take a week or so to go from there. IMHO it would make sense to redirect to for now, to get people used to its disappearance. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 08:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Oops, seems I overlooked that... Anyway, I edited all pages that mentioned linked to it (except for talk pages, I think these can handle a broken link). The page with the most changes was, not surprisingly, Wikipedia:Substub. I'd appreciate someone looking over that one, and second redirecting to as soon as possible. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 10:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
::That page looks fine. All that remains is removal of from the few items in :Category:Substubs - some just need null edits. The deletion log archive one is the tricky one. I (embarrassed pause) still use an old version of IE, so I can't edit that one as it is one single block of over 32k. I'll also see whether the protection has been removed from the template itself, and if so I'll do the redirect. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 11:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
:::The deletion log is protected, and I'm not an admin. But I have to say that I don't care much if unimportant parts of the content of some articles deleted 10 months ago change ''sligthly'', so just let there be a broken category and some broken links on that page. I took care of the other one (Template messages/All). -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 11:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
::Fair enough, and thanks. As to the protection, I ''could'' take it off myself, but feel happier about contacting AllyUnion about it first (he put the protection on it). I've left a note on his user page which with any luck he'll see in the next few hours. Misunderstood your comment. Yeah, I don't think it matters that much about an item in the deletion log; it was simply a case where the entire content was left on the page (including the substub tag). See the lined-through comment as regards the template itself. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 12:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
==Active Wiki Fixup Projects==
I just found Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects, which looks like the WSS should be added to it. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 11:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
== SFD? ==
What happened to SFD? Sounds like a good idea to me. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 13:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Currently making its way through Village pump (Proposals). Not sure what the next step after that will be - anyone? User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 01:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
::I say we write a draft page and let people have a look at it - and maybe a test run with a few selected extra-useless stubs. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 08:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
If people consider the Village Pump proposal for a SFD page to have a general creation consensus , I'd be happy to take a first go at it so we have a starting point. I imagine that it would look a lot like TFD, with different deletion guidlines and it's own strikout to indicate information removed or replaced; new for new or replacing information; revision to indicate a passage with multiple minor edits. User:Ceyockey 02:51, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
:Note that since you began this re-edit, I changed the position of one of the sentences I added 9the one about multi-stubbing. I have taken the liberty of moving it in you amendment, since all it does is place it in a more appropriate place (two paragraphs lower than it was previously).
==RIP==
Ladies and gentlemen, the Substub is dead. Long live the glorious stub category revolution! User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 02:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
* Maybe breaking ground on a ''Stub Crypt'' or ''Garden of Passed Stubs'' would be in order? :) User:Ceyockey 03:34, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Roads
When you are done, it is important that you make sure that the new stub and the new stub category are linked correctly to other categories. Using the ''road-stub'' as an example, the ''road-stub category'' needs to be a member of :Category:Stub categories (because it's a stub category) and :Category:Roads (because it's a category consisting of roads). If your new category has been made from part of an existing stub category or categories, these should also be listed here (so, for example, :Category:France geography stubs should be part of :Category:France-related stubs and :Category:Europe geography stubs).
If you have doubts or comments regarding any part of the process, don't hesitate to address them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting.
== WP:TFD proposal impacting on stub template/category deletion ==
''I forgot to add a link to the salient part of the page: Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Speedy_category_deletion ~~User:Ceyockey''
There is a discussion that happened about 5 days ago which I only just now noticed which deals with the deletion of stub templates and their associated categories. I thought I'd bring it to your attention; I've noted there that the decisions in this area shouldn't be made on WP:TFD and WP:CFD alone but should come here at some point for discussion/input ... or at least informing folks here that such discussions are taking place (wouldn't want to be dogmatic about saying who can talk about what where and among whom :) ). User:Ceyockey 02:38, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
== Removing icons? ==
Hi all - just stumbled across Wikipedia:Suspend use of stub icons - thought WP:WSS should know about it. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 05:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
== Substub page ==
Hi there! Regarding Wikipedia:Substub - this page should probably be reworded to indicate there no longer is such a thing. I'd also support deleting it entirely, if necessary, but I think asking WSS input would be useful. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 11:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
:I reworded it a couple of days ago, when it became clear that substubs were going, and I see several others have altered it more since (User:Grm wnr, for one). It might be better reworded as part of the new stub page that is being written, but I think that if it's made clear that Substubs are a historical item since deprecated, it shouldn't cause much trouble, and can be linked in from the stub page. Also, since people may wonder for a while what happened to "good ol'substub", it won't hurt if the page hangs around for a while. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 13:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
::Are there really no substubs anymore? We treat them differently now, but "Substubs are short stubs" - a hazy, but workable definition, which could arguably mean that "Substubs are stubs that are too short to be considered ''good'' or ''acceptable'' stubs", which in turn means they still need special attention... Even as a subset of stubs, the term is entrenched in Wikipedia jargon, and we should have a page on that. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 17:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
*Would Template:Historical be appropriate? I do agree that substub as a meme still exists. But to alleviate confusion it might be a good idea to not use it overly much. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 09:14, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
== The next target ==
Now that Wikipedia:Stub is taken care of, it's probably time to move on to Wikipedia:Perfect stub article. I might get started on it this next week, but if somebody wants to go ahead, have fun. Cheers. --User:Sn0wflake 22:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
==Another page for your perusal==
While Snowflake and other were diligently creating the new central project page, I've been working on something else which I think might be a reasonable addition to the project's pages, which I'd now like to present for appraisal and improvement. A lot of recent talk has been about trying to maintain consistent naming of stub templates, and working out which redirects are badly-enough named to reuire deletion. I have written a first draft of some naming guidelines, also including some of the major exceptions, on a subpage of my user page at User:Grutness/WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines. If you think it is a good enough start for such a page, then I will move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines. Please have a look, make any amendments you think necessary and get back to me (even if only to tell me it was a waste of time and a co0mplete crock of tutae, as they might say in Maori). User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 08:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
:Even though I find it quite complete and certainly useful, I don't see how the average user would bother reading through it before creating stubs with unusual naming. Maybe an abridged version is in order? --User:Sn0wflake 19:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
::You're probably right, but I'm considering it more as a way to list precedents and see what doesn't fit into the scheme and how we can improve those that don't. Perhaps "Naming guidelines" should be a summary of this page, and the page in my user pages should be called something like "Naming precedents"? Any thoughts? User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 01:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Do a little revision in case you missed anything and post it on the project page, then. :) As you proposed, make sure there is a quick summary on the top and it's all set. --User:Sn0wflake 12:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:OK - I've added the summary, and moved the page. Feel free to change anything that doesn't look right! User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 13:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
== Some helpful messages ==
Even as we are diligently hacking away at (sorting) the remaining articles in :Category:Stub, some users are creating new
WikiProject Stub Sorting
#redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
WikiProject Stub sorting
Some Wikipedians have formed a Wikipedia:WikiProject to better organize and categorize Wikipedia:stub and stub categories. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. Everyone is welcome to help, for more information please inquire on the talk: and see the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#To_Do_List there. ==Project goals== This WikiPedia:WikiProject aims primarily to sort stubs in the Wikipedia. To do this the project has the following aims: # Better categorization of stubs # Make sure that stub sorting does not get messy # Ensure that stub categories attempt to remain at moderate sizes ==Why is stub sorting important?== Stub articles are generally short and/or below the high Wikipedia standard. If they are not sorted, then it means they are less likely to be edited to higher quality as nobody necessarily knows the page is in need of attention. Even if a page is sorted into a category indicating it is in need of attention, such as the articles needing a Wikipedia:Cleanup_resources, it is still not as good as putting it in a stub category. This is because stub categories attract experts in specific areas (chemists can see chemistry stubs for example), whereas generic cleanup/Wikipedia:Deadend_pages categories do not. ==Parentage== The parent of this WikiProject is Wikipedia:Maintenance. ==Structure== See Wikipedia:Stub categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types for more information on existing stub types. === Policy and criteria=== *To see the current policy and other information on stub sorting and stubs in general, see: Wikipedia:Stub. ===New stubs=== *To propose new stub categories/templates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Proposed new stubs. *List newly found stub categories/templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered_stub_categories. ==Important Article Links== * Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB) * Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (WP:WSS/ST) - lists all stub categories (with statistics). * Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (WP:WSS/C) - Proposals and clarifications on stub types. * Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion (WP:SFD) - For deletion of stub templates and categories. * Wikipedia:Stub categories#Stub_Category_Creation_Guidelines * Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs * :Category:Stub categories ''See also:'' :Category:WikiProject Stub sorting ==Participants== ''The full list was getting too long for this page. It has been moved to :Category:WikiProject Stub sorting participants. Current number of participants is 93''. ==Stub sorting methods== ===General rules=== * To put an article into a stub category, if it is a chemistry stub for example, change the existing stub tag (if it exists) from
WikiProject Stub sorting
For creation, deletion or merge of stubs,
see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria!
The same page is for discussion of the hierarchy of stub categories. Archives material is available here by date of cleanup: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 2, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 4. ==To Do List== {| style="background:transparent; margin-left:15px" |- ! rowspan="2" valign="top" | ! align="left" | Wikipedia:To-do list for Wikipedia:[{{localurl::|action=purge}} :] | align="right" | [{{localurl::/to_do|action=edit}} edit this list] - [{{localurl::/to_do|action=watch}} add to watchlist] |- | colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#efefef; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" | {{:/to_do}} |} To do To do, priority undefined == Links to WikiProjects in stub messages == I've just had someone revert my link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One in the , citing a prior, similar, revert by User:Rdsmith4 with the edit summary "WikiProject shouldn't be linked from the article namespace". Given that a ton of stubs have links to relevant WikiProjects (IMO, a good thing), and that I can't find any precedent here or at Wikipedia:WikiProject, I'm reverting, but I would like some clarification if there is anything wrong. [Crossposted to /Policy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ] - User:SoM 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) :So far hasn't insulted anyone... Yet it was far more extensive a change. Circeus 16:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) :In the interest of centralized discussion, I suggest any further comments go to Wikipedia talk:Stub sorting policy#Links to WikiProjects in stub messages. 13:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) I can't help but feel that the new look to could have been better, though - a link to the WikiProject, yes, but this doesn't do that directly, and looks a bit too wordy. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 07:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC) :Gawd, that stub message may be longer than some computer game substubs!. My personal opinion is that it would be nice to include links to the appropriate WikiProjects for those that want the links, but the can easily be "hidden" as a link under the word Wikipedia in the second sentence of the standard stub format ("You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"). Then if they want, they can also include a template at the top of the article's Talk page, like some WikiProjects have, that says this article is part of WikiProject XYZ... User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 11:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ::This gets to the scope of WP:WSS. I was going to suggest some things around "ownership" of various aspects of stub content, but then it hit me ... this is ''Wikipedia'' where "ownership" is an understandably dirty word. The question is whether we would want to write into the "charter" something about stub message content or not. With regard to the links related to the "help Wikipedia" text, it's not a bad idea to have a Wikiproject link under that text as it helps to focus assistance into the group efforts of the Project. As for length of stub messages ... for my money, anything that has to wrap on my screen is too long; that's about 150 characters or usually <25 words. User:Ceyockey 23:45, 2005 May 24 (UTC) :If we do, I'd limit it by number of words rather than characters, simply because some subject names are pretty long. Things like are about as short as they can be and are still pretty lengthy in terms of characters. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 02:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC) == Overhaul of stub page structure. == User:Grutness mentioned this on Wikipedia talk:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories: ::''I'm beginning to wonder if the WP pages for Stub sorting need a bit of an overhaul anyway - it's forked a bit and grown into a bit of a tangle. But I suspect (shudder) that we'd need a special new page to discuss whether an overhaul is needed!'' It's true. We need a restructuring and rewriting of many pages that relate to stub sorting and stubs in general. To seed the discussion, here's a list of stub-related pages: *Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub *Wikipedia:Perfect stub article *Wikipedia:Stub categories *WP:WSS **Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy **Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria **Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines **Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types *:Category:Stub categories *Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories *Wikipedia:template messages/Stubs I'm sure there are more, so please add to this list. For starters, I think Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and Wikipedia:Perfect stub article have to be rewritten to make stub sorting more apparent (they still recommend using ). Wikipedia:Stub categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types are essentially the same. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria doesn't do what the name says. Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines overlap significantly. Now, I don't want to make this more of a campaign than it has to be, and I myself have learned to navigate these pages, but in my opinion it would be nice to streamline this whole business a bit more to make it more accessible, and a procedure which is less confusing for the casual editor means less work for stub sorters in the long run. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 15:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I agree, I tried to sort out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting page a few weeks ago, it had no direction, no explanation of why or even how to sort stubs etc. I think making people aware of sorting into categories rather than just a plain old stub is really important. User:Bluemoose 16:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::It is a mess. I don't think I'm being ''too'' egotistical to say that I do a hell of a lot of stub sorting, and yet I didn't know about Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy until about a week ago. There needs - at the minimum - to be some more sign-posting of what is where. And more usefully still, some kind of overhaul of the whole system. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 09:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: I am sort of trying to start that, but you guys have to help me on some way, even if it is by proposing something completely different from what I have. --User:Sn0wflake 19:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I don't have much time for this right now, but I think I'll get to it in a few days -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 12:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I tried to write something up on User:Grm_wnr/Stub page draft, but realized it had already become to long and specific. I'm posting it here anyway, because I didn't want to throw it away and maybe some parts of it can be salvaged for a better page. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 16:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I found your draft to be very suitable. It's only flaw, as I see it, is being a little verbose at one point or another. If there are no objections, I will work upon it and post my version below the first draft so that we (the community. Get involved, everyone!) can discuss this further. --User:Sn0wflake 16:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::: If you'll be working in User:Grm_wnr space for drafting maybe we should move the discussion to it's talk page and leave a note here for folks to follow. I totally agree that there's a need to clarify and focus the stub page(s). This is really a good idea. User:Rx StrangeLove 17:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I moved everything over to here. I just finished the third draft, based upon grm's work. It's starting to look good... still needs work, though. --User:Sn0wflake 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ::::: If SfD makes it through Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) it should probably be added to the Centralization project: third draft section below. I'm also wondering if we should alter the substub section to reflect the talk around eliminating substub usage. Perhaps take this opportunity to eliminate them as a category, it sounds like that's what was being talked about below see: substubs (again). Personally I'd like to see them go away, though it'd take some work emptying it out....which Grutness has been hard at work doing already....I'd be willing to help out with that User:Rx StrangeLove 01:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Proposal for yet more stub templates == *Engineering *Crime :To whoever didn't sign this - please read the note at the top of the page! New stubs should be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. Anyway, why not use the currently existing and , which seem to be exactly the ones you're looking for? User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) * I didn't propose it, but I think an 'Engineering' stub would be a good idea. There are a lot of things that are engineering related that don't fit neatly into , , ''or'' . --User:Dcfleck 16:46, 2005 May 1 (UTC) ==Sportbio-stub - sl. change== I've made a slight change to the wording of , from "...biographical article about a sportsperson" to "biographical article relating to sport...". The reason is that I've found a few stubs relating to racehorses, and this seems the best category to put them in... User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 06:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I have moved this up for the sake of organization, if you find you must, then please move it back to the bottom of the page. --User:Sn0wflake 01:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Sounds like a good revision, Grutness. I suppose we couldn't say "horses are people too" and leave it at that :) User:Ceyockey 23:00, 2005 May 9 (UTC) ==Creating new stub categories section== I took a shot at this section, I'm hoping it's close to what people were looking for. Please take a look and make whatever changes you see fit, I User:Grm_wnr/Stub_page_draft Categorization#How_to_create_categories from several Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Guidelines#Creation_of_stub_categories. I'm also happy to make whatever changes people would like...especially the "how to" section on creating the categories, something I'm a little hazy on. It might not be very clear, as you can see I refered to the help article on category creation instead of explaining it here. User:Rx StrangeLove 17:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :I like it, but the wording sucks. ;) Now seriously, it could do with some rewriting, but it's looking quite good. This basically leads us to our final issue: stub deletion system... I really don't know how to handle that. Help, anyone? --User:Sn0wflake 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::Are you thinking that we'd need a Sfd page? Othwise we could run them through categories for deletion. Or maybe do them as a separate section on the Creation of stub categories page? I suppose for consistency sake we should do a SfD page like the others, though it wouldn't see much action. And then we'd have to replace the deleted stubs, we probably wouldn't want to redirect them would we? User:Rx StrangeLove 01:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::::(I've just remembered TfD, I forgot about that. That makes most of the comments above pointless, nevermind :) User:Rx StrangeLove 04:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::I agree it could use some tuning for sure, I had to fit it in between real life Sunday morning. I'll take it back and do some touching up, see what I can do. User:Rx StrangeLove 21:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::I made another pass at it, but there's still work to be on it, especially at the end in the category section. I'll work on that next, I'm not sure how much "how to" material to include in the category part. What makes sense to you guys? User:Rx StrangeLove 00:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :Re: the idea of an Sfd page - I like the idea personally. At the moment we vote on stubs ar WSS/Criteria, ''then'' at tfd, and ''again'' at cfd. Doing the whole job in one pass would be a great advantage. As for "wouldn't see much action", over half the templates on tfd at the moment are stub templates! I'm beginning to thing that creation of a stub template is seen as a rite of passage for new wikipedians! Re: the "how to" part on stub categories, creators of stub templates need to know how to name the new category and which parent categories to put it in ( links to :Category:Foo-related stubs, which is a subcategory of both :Category:Stub categories and :Category:Foo). User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 04:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::I agree about Sfd, if it would streamline the process I'm all for it, especially after what User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse found. Hopefully getting the current stubs culled out, the proposal process will help limit how much we have to use SfD but there's no way to make the proposal process mandatory (is there?) so we shall see. I also agree about including category creation, I'll expand the "how to" section. User:Rx StrangeLove 15:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I added some more material to the category section at the end, take a look and let me know how it looks, I'm open to suggestions. I still need to add a part about adding the stub template to the stub lists so people see them. User:Rx StrangeLove 05:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I made a slight amendment - you said :category:stub when you meant :category:stub categories. Other than that, it looks about right. User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::SfD would probably be quite useful, but we have to make sure that it doesn't require several weeks for the process to come to an end. As I see it, a week should be enough. --User:Sn0wflake 19:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ::A week sounds fine to me, too. Should there be the option of speedy-delete for patent nonsense like banana-stub and ? User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 01:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :It would probably be quite useful, but I am under the impression that there would likely be some objections from outside of the project. Just my opinion, though. --User:Sn0wflake 01:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::Yeah, you're probably right there. Ah well, we can probably live with any ridiculous templates for a week... User:Grutness|User_talk:Grutness 04:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :::We don't know until we try it. To make a point, we should really flood TfD and CfD with the new stubs Grutness just found. I think that would raise the chances a lot :) -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 09:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :
†
here lies
Template:substub 07-21-2004 - 05-18-2005 R.I.P.
-- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 08:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
P.S. :Category:Substubs is still on life support, however. -- User:Grm_wnr Esc">User_talk:Grm_wnr 14:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Great work, Grutness. That was truly an accomplishment. This will be reinforced by the new Wikipedia:Stub as of tomorrow. :) --User:Sn0wflake 23:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
==deletion templates during stub sorting==
Hey, when you go through and sort stubs, don't smack articles with the patent nonsense template. Patent nonsense is absolute gibberish. As much as you may not like silly statements, propaganda, advertisements, etc, those are valid stubs that need editors to work on them. Please go read "Not to be confused with..." at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. kthxbye. PS, also, an edit that would mark an article to be deleted is anything but a minor edit. If you still choose to put a delete template on an article, make sure it has a valid edit summary. User:SchmuckyTheCat 18:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
:Hm... I am sorry but I think that you have probably posted this on the wrong Talk page. If a specific member of the project did something you didn't agree with, you are encouraged to talk to him or her directly, but I don't see how we can help you. Cheers. --User:Sn0wflake 22:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
::Since at least two different stub sorters have done it, I'm posting it where it will be read by stub sorters. User:SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Recently the project has grown by quite a bit, and not everybody reads this Talk page, so I would really recommend direct communication; it's often the best way to solve this sort of problem. But your comment has been taken note of, nevertheless. --User:Sn0wflake 23:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
== Centralization project: final draft ==
''This section will be moved to Wikipedia:Stub on the 19th, May of 2005. Cheers! PS: I would appreciate comments about the changes made by Courtland to the New stub categories section. Rx opposes to it on some degree and I am uncertain. Input, anyone? I also removed references to section stubs, as I believe they need their own article.'' (User:Sn0wflake)
Stubs are articles which have not yet received substantial attention from the Wikipedia editors. They have been created, but don't yet contain enough information to be considered articles. The community believes that stubs are far from worthless. They are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete.
===Identifying a stub===
A stub is an article which is clearly too short, but not too short to be useless. On a general manner, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title. This usually means stubs are about the length of 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that a longer article may be a stub if the topic is complex enough - conversely, a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub.
In the past, a category referred to as ''substubs'' was utilised in case articles were smaller than the proposed size of stubs, but this category has been deprecated with time. It is important to remember that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is why the Wikitionary exists. In case your article is too short to be a stub, consider moving it to said sister project or, even better, with a small amount of research, create an useful stub. Take this into consideration before creating short entries containing close to no information.
===Categorising stubs===
After writing the stub, the editor must insert what is called a ''stub template'' so that the article can be flagged as a stub. These stub templates should invariably be placed at the bottom of the article. Stub templates are composed by two distinct parts: a short message stating that said article is a stub of a particular type and encouraging editors to expand it, and a category link, which places the article on a stub category.
Stub categories are needed due to the fact that the basic stub template - - has become so large that it became very hard to find articles on a specific subject. That is why stub categories were created. If an editor is, for example, a biologist, then he or she can look for stubs with the tag on said category and easily find stubs to which they can add, subtract or modify.
In general, the naming convention for stubs is ''topic''-stub; for a complete list of stub categories, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. When marking articles as stubs, please be as precise as you possibly can - it saves other editors a lot of work further down the road. If an article overlaps two potential categories, two different stub templates may be used, but using more than two is strongly discouraged.
Stub-related activities are centralized on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting (shortcut WP:WSS). The project should be your main referential when it comes to this subject.
===New stub categories===
If you identify a group of stubs that do not fit in an existing category, or if an existing stub category is growing too large and might be optimized by creating a narrower category, you might propose the creation of a new stub category. Before you start a new stub category, make sure you consider these guidelines:
*Is there a stub for this topic already?
::Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types.
*Will the new category be well-defined enough to help editors identify articles that they have the expertise to expand?
::Remember that using stubs categories is a way to facilitate article expansion.
*Does the new category cover ground not covered by other categories, or create a well-defined subcategory that does?
::A new category might fit as a sub-category of more than one existing category, such as in the case of , which is a ''child'' of both and .
*Will there be a significant number of stubs in this category; are there enough article stubs to warrant this new type?
::Typically the threshold is about 100 articles. This threshold is waved if the stub category exists as a tool for use by a Wikipedia:WikiProject.
*Would your new category overlap with other categories?
::For example, geography stubs are sorted by country so you wouldn’t want to create mountain-stub or river-stub.
*If you are breaking a sub-category out of a pre-existing category, will the new stub reduce the size of the parent category by a significant amount?
::This is not an absolute necessity, but it has been a driver for the creation of most of the existing stub categories.
If you think you have satisfied these guidelines, propose the new stub category Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Proposed_new_stubs. If there are no objections within a week, you can go ahead and create the new stub category.
===Creating the stub template===
First, you will need to create the template which will be displayed on the articles which contain the stub. This should be named logically, following this model: Template:topic-stub.
This is the basic format for new stub templates:
here lies
Template:substub 07-21-2004 - 05-18-2005 R.I.P.
''This A-related article is a Wikipedia:Perfect stub article. You can Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub Wikipedia by [{{localurl::|action=edit}} expanding it]''.
BThese stub templates should invariably be placed at the bottom of the article.Is that strictly required? I prefer to put the stub template above headings such as External links or References, and succession boxes or related concept boxes. This way readers will realise the article is incomplete (and consider adding to it) before they get to the "boring" stuff at the bottom of the page. An alternate wording might be ''These stub templates should be placed at the bottom of the text of the article.'' --User:ScottDavis 09:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Ohh... so it's ''you'' who's been doing that! The messages are supposed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and they really hurt the eyes coming in above the external links. They're not aimed promarily at casual readers, after all - they're for editors. And the sort of person who will edit an article is the sort of person who will also take note of external links. Article, then links, then stub template, then categories, then other wikis is the standard order I've always used. User:Grutness...''User_talk:Grutness 09:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::The placement of the stub templates is a fairly long-standing tradition for the Wikipedia. Although I've never seen the original arguments for the placement, my personal opinion is that I like the constancy of always having the stub templates in the same place as the very last text in the article. You don't want a too prominent position for the stub templates, but since they are not just for experienced Wikipedia editors, they should not be hidden away on the talk pages either. It would be interesting to see how many new Wikipedia Users were encouraged to do their first edit of a Wikipedia article because of the topic stubs. User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 10:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Yeah - it's ''me'' who does that! I don't think I'm the only one. I've only just found the instruction that I shouldn't. Stub templates without a picture (like