Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

lit-stub[change | change source]

I noticed that we've several times proposed a stub tag for works of literature, but we haven't followed through. I'm reasonably certain that we have the requisite number of stubs to justify a lit stub Purplebackpack89 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this one would be a good idea to follow through with, so I'm in support of it's creation, yes. Goblin 19:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!
While I have no problem with creating one. I think you misunderstand the purpose of creating a specific stub type. Unless there is someone actively working those specific stubs from stub status to non stub status, there is no real point in creating another one other than trying to create a make work project. We don't create them just because there are alot of articles of that type. Remember our goal with the stubs tags were to stay as generic as possible so we don't have millions of them like ended up happening at en. In otherwords to stay simple. -DJSasso (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose this comment is probably more aimed at the US stubs you propossed earlier up than literature which is fairly generic. -DJSasso (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That's water under the bridge, but there clearly were/are hundreds of short articles about American people and American places...I know that's not as generic as literature, but that still encompasses a very wide range of topics and articles. At en, they have stubs for each state and each city, which I agree is too much Purplebackpack89 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody seems to have specifically objected to this idea, so I've gone ahead and created it. Is that okay (I'm not familiar with the protocol here)? Osiris (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Did you also create the category(ies) that go with it? Are you going to actually do the stub sorting and work on the lit stubs? Usually we don't create new categories unless someone's actually going to actively work on them.--Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Finally, a literature stub tag. I'd be happy to use AWB to sort the stubs. In fact, I've already done an entire category. -Orashmatash- 15:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a word of warning that you should check every edit before adding the stub tag via AWB, particularly if running through categories and basically finding and replacing, as it can throw up errors with some page titles - and yes, I speak from experience! Goblin 16:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

Germany Stub[change | change source]

Well over 250 Germany related articles just using geo-stub, plus those using stub or no template at all. I propose a " {{Germany-stub}} - for use with anything about the Germany, except people".

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">[[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|30px]] ''This [[Wikipedia:Stub|short article]] about the [[:Category:Germany stubs|Germany]] can be made longer. You can help Wikipedia by <span class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} adding to it]''.</div><includeonly>[[Category:Germany stubs<noinclude>| </noinclude>]]</includeonly><noinclude> Bärliner 02:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would be happy to concentrate on expanding these stubs, a dedicated stub would make it easier to find them. Bärliner 09:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If you're expanding the stubs then there is little point in adding this stub tag to the list - it's much better to expand them out of stub type before creating the stub, than expand them only to have an empty stub category. Goblin 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds!
With everything in one place not only is it easier for me to work through the list, but easier for others too. Extra categories could encourage those with interests in particular fields. Bärliner 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. There are plenty of articles that it can be used on, too. --Orashmatash 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

{{spacecraft-stub}}[change | change source]

Is it possible to create a {{spacecraft-stub}}? I had created a space shuttle stub and I got a reply that there are very few articles about space shuttles and missions. I think a spacecraft stub would fit all kinds of spacecraft. Omkar 11:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Basically we try to keep stub types to the most generic form possible. Shuttles for example fall under {{transport-stub}} and things like sats would probably fall under {{Tech-stub}}. We try not to have stubs for things that would include less that an a few hundred articles which I think would be the case with this one as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The spacecraft that I was saying were The Space Shuttles, Parts of the Space Shuttle, Soyuz and Progress. Omkar 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we have sub-types under biology stubs?[change | change source]

There are now 2,097 articles under Category:Biology stubs. I think it would be helpful to have subtypes in this category. Some of the ones I can think of are:

  • animal-stub
  • bird-stub
  • fish-stub
  • plant-stub

If these are created, I would work on populating them by changing the stub tags in appropriate articles. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't sound bad. I think this would be useful and much more accurate. Let's see what others say. -Barras (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Personally I would say no. We try to keep as few stub types as possibly. We are such a small community that there are rarely people who work on articles based on a very specific stub type that it generally works much better just having big semi-generic stubs. To be honest it looks a bit like a make work project which often happens when people come over from en. Not saying that is what you are doing, but it does happen alot when people come over here (and often end up getting chased off). Generally we tend to stress article content here more than gnomish work. We already have far too many stub types and I would prefer we merge some of them back into their parents. -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I can see that. I'll just squelch my first reaction of wondering whether I should continue with the gnomish work I've been doing -- my main interest is in cleanup. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify I probably came off too harsh. There is a difference between helpful gnoming (I do alot of it) like adding appropriate categories and the like. And things that probably aren't going to make much of a difference. A common one that people do is spamming pages with cleanup tags etc. But stub organizing comes in a close second. We are very small so alot of those sorts of changes don't help and energy could be better focused. Of course that is just my opinion. But the changes I have seen you make with categories are good changes I don't mean to make you stop those. :) -DJSasso (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. :) I have been putting on some cleanup tags (mostly to indicate where references are needed), but so far only when I'm doing something else to the article anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah the odd one here and there is totally ok. But we have had people go and hit 200 articles in a row with tags and never actually fix a single article or state what they actually think the problem is other than the generic template. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
A quick scan shows that about 90+% of biology stubs are taxonomic topics, either species or higher categories. Most of these are going to be a simple answer to the question "What is a such-and-such?" Even on enWP most of them are stubs. Unless there is some particular justification, there is no reason to think they should be much longer. I have tried to make sure that pages on biological concepts and principles have fuller coverage. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Geology stub?[change | change source]

Category:Science stubs does need to be more dispersed. I think it may be time to have a {{geology-stub}}, {{chem-stub}} and {{physics-stub}}. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In principle I would support this, but could we possibly have some rough numbers just to give a better idea? Also - my 'support' is pretty much on the condition that stubs are only 'retagged' if other work is carried out on the article at the same time, or that they are new stubs. Perhaps the admins could be a bit more heavy handed than normal, because ultimately the time would be better spent expanding one than tagging hundreds. Goblin 11:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24!
OK, well, a census of the first page of 200 science stubs shows an overwhelming need for a chem-stub; most of user:Chemicalinterest's many pages are stubs, about 78 on this page alone (which covers mostly A to C). Second comes Astronomy with about 35 on this page, probably high because a dozen asteroids start with a number, and so are listed here. We should have a chem-stub right away, I think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Support chem and astro stubs, neutral to weak support on geology and physics stubs (I fear ppl would mix up geology and geography stubs) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, had I been asked, I would have advised that 'geo-stub' was asking for mistakes, and instead better would be geog-stub and geol-stub. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You could change geology-stub to rock-stub. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Media Stub[change | change source]

I would like to suggest that we add a media stub, as there are alot of pages in the technology stub section that would fit better in a media stub. I believe it would help reduce the clutter in that stub and let people find pages to edit easier. FoxMcCloud (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Stub categories and templates[change | change source]

I have just done this following to make it easier to work with stubs, stub templates, and stub categories:

  • Brought the {{Stub category}} template over from enwiki. This template does several things:
    • Gives description of the category
    • Allows specifying a category to be applied to an article using the template
    • Shows the name of the stub template that can be used to add articles to the category
  • For each stub category, I added the {{Stub category}} template to provide info about the category
  • I created a new category, Category:Stub templates, to group all the stub templates together. I added this category to all the stub templates I could find.
  • For the 2 or 3 stub templates that didn't have a category set up, I created the categories. For example, I created Category:Government stubs to go with template {{Government-stub}}, which already existed.

Comments? I await the brickbats. ;) --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up the templates a bit. All new stubs should be approved here and not just created. Resulted in some deletions and also some redirects to the normal stub tag as they were used already. -Barras (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I just found another one that doesn't seem to be approved: {{Chile-stub}}. Maybe you knew about that one already. By the way, I didn't create any stub templates, just categories for templates I found. I won't create those any more unless I know that the stub category is official. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It is a redirect which is fine as it was already used when we detected it. Nothing to worry much about. -Barras (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Visart-stub}} again[change | change source]

It was deleted by Barras this morning, even though there was a consensus for it several months ago. I want to make sure there is still a consensus for a stub devoted to drawing, painting, photography, sculpture, and architecture. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The stub was created some months back, only two people commented on this last year. One commented only sounds like a suggestion for better naming, not really a support. The stub was only used by one article, after some months since its creation, those no need for a stub. But still: How many pages might be going to be in that category? Only one again or more (+250 at least)? -Barras (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I count three comments, including mine, all supports. Other stubs have been created with only two people agreeing. Furthermore, the other two people were admins...if they had a problem with the stub being created, why didn't they delete it when it was first created? Furthermore, it doesn't have to get to 250 right away, just 250 eventually. And considering that there are 150 pages in the categories "Art" and "Photography" combined (not counting subcats), I am reasonably confident that it could get to 250 just with stubs currently on this Wikipedia (Also, I believe somewhere around here there was a proposal to lower the number) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Then would you mind explaining to me why the stub was only used on one single page? It was created in March(?). Not enough time to fill it, apparently. The proposer of such things should take care of this kind of stuff. Also as I said on my talk page, I don't really count Djsasso's comment as support. It sounds more like a suggestion for better naming. -Barras (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You still have yet to refute my proof of there being hundreds of stubs on art in this Wikipedia...fact, I might go so far as to say you haven't even looked in the pertinent categories...of which there are several. There clearly are enough stubs to fill that category...this is a fairly far reaching category, after all Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again: If you say there are enough, then you should have added the stub to pages, not me. You wanted this new stub, not me. You haven't done this, the stub was almost unused, well, one article using it isn't really much use. -Barras (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The point of creating stub templates is that they are used. Otherwise, they might as well be deleted as unused. So, if you are going to go to the trouble of finding evidence of 250 eligible stubs, then you should tag them when the template is approved. I have no objection to restoring the template if, 1. you find 250 eligible stubs, 2. you tag a majority (or all) of them within two weeks of the restoration. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I am confident I can get 250 stubs Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: The old discussion can be found here now as I just archived the old stuff. -Barras (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't you have waited on that a week? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈
I could, but the page was blown up quite a bit with things from 2008, 2009 and 2010. Also I provided the link, because I knew this is coming up. -Barras (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There are quite a few pages on general stubs which should have been on visart-stubs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
So, Mac, do you believe that visarts is significant broad and covers enough pages to warrant a new stub? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I was one of the two people who commented there. I will say that I don't think we need to create the stub. If no one is actively working on improving visual arts stubs they are perfectly find with the generic stub. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

250 too large?[change | change source]

That means that about 0.5% of the articles on Wikipedia need to be in a category. On EN, you have 100 times as many articles and one quarter of the number of articles needed to create a stub category. That means its 400 times easier to create a stub category on EN. Now, there is a pretty fair consensus around that there are way too many stub categories than on EN, but still, 400 times. On Spanish, there is a significantly higher number needed for a stub category, but again, since they have way more articles then we do, it's still harder to get a stub category here. Let's make it, say, only 200 times harder than it is on EN by dropping the requirement from 250 to 100. Also, I think we don't need to tag all 250/100 right away, just prove that they could be tagged in the future, tag some of them now and the rest later, say, as part of an expansion or recategorization, as has been suggested in other places Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't want a that complex stub system as enwiki has, so the requirements are high. If there aren't enough pages for a new stub (the mentioned 250 pages), then it is enough to use the normal {{stub}} tag or if available the next higher sub-stub. This is also the reason why the implementation of new stubs is firstly discussed here. We aren't enwiki and don't need to compare to them. The new stub should after created be added to the articles. Referring to the recent on-going discussion, after about 5 months since the new stub existed, only one(!) article used it. This clearly doesn't show the need for such a stub. After 3 months I expect that at least 50 to 100 pages are already changed to the new stub, not just one. I still think the 250 isn't that much as like 80 or even 90% of our pages are stubs anyway. -Barras (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
400 times. That's completely unfair, violates WP:BUREAU and other guidelines. Regarding the discussion that you brought up, which really isn't germaine, you apparantly haven't even bothered to look to see if there are articles that could fit that stub...I was able to find over a hundred articles in a matter of minutes. 250 is clearly too high when you only have 50-60K articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this unfair? This is the guideline here for some years now. No one complained abut it yet. All other people had to fulfil the same criteria. I don't see why it is unfair. Just because one of our rules is harder than enwiki's? This is a poor argument, really. And no, I haven't bothered to look this category up. It is the work that should be started by the proposer to add the template and show the need for the tag. I don't feel like finding all the things that fit to the new stub. It is not the topic of my knowledge anyway. You just complained few hours ago about me adding the stub. -Barras (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
We are simple wikipedia, english and spanish wikipedia are not trying to be simple. When we say we are simple we don't just mean the wording used in articles. Everything about our wiki needs to be simple, creating more and more stubs makes the bureaucracy of editing the wiki harder and harder and more and more complex for people. Yes we are harder then english and spanish to create stubs because we don't need the stubs, (neither do they really for that matter). We only have about 30 active editors. Different stub categories are only really helpful when you have hundreds of editors. So on simple they just add to making things here more complex when we are trying to be less complex. -DJSasso (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why the limit should be lessened. We are not enWP, and 250 is not a very large number at all. Also, users should not be wasting their time finding more stub classifications, they should fixing the stubs so they are no longer stubs. Also, only two years ago, the limit was dropped in half, when we had many thousand articles less. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything I would rather we raised the minimum number. I also would support going back to the base 6 or so categories we started with when we stopped just using stub a few years ago. The whole purpose of our stub system is that someone is actively working on that stubs articles to improve them from stubs. So if no one is doing that (as is evidenced by none of the articles being tagged) then we shouldn't have the stub. We are actively trying to avoid having the complicated stub system en uses. -DJSasso (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Visual arts stubs[change | change source]

I just noticed this category, but I don't know a stub template that would put an article into it. Is there one? Should this category be deleted? Inquiring minds want to know! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Look a couple sections up. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
We need it. Say yes to it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How many stub tags on a page?[change | change source]

Is it OK for an article to have more than one stub tag? I've been trying to decide between different ones, but maybe I don't have to pick and choose. For example, what if there were an American (US-bio-stub) basketball player (sports-bio-stub) who later became an actor (actor-stub), or something like that? (Think that can't happen? Can you say Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? :) ) --Auntof6 (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd go for the US-bio-stub in your example. A sports-bio-stub and actor-stub are both sub-cats of biographies, so I'd go for just his nationality, and the fact its a bio. I'd also say just one stub template to stop it being listed under several cats, several times. Normandy (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of how I was thinking. Then I remembered User:DJSasso saying that the categories are used to help people find stubs when they want to expand on them. If that's the case, then having an article in more than one stub category increases the chances that the article will get expanded. And I would have gone with sports-bio-stub, since I think that's what he's best known for. I just couldn't think of a good example that would fit both a bio and non-bio stub category. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
On en they use more than one sometimes. I see no problem with doing more than one. I personally only ever choose the one that is most specific and best represents the subject. But I have no problem with others putting on more than one...However more than 2 or worst case 3 is probably pushing the limit. For your example I personally would choose sports-bio-stub since he was best known for being a basketball player. But if I was someone who did add more than one tag I would probably just add us-bio-stub and sports-bio-stub. I wouldn't add the actor one since that is so minor for him. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with 3 stubs?-- (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
They start to clutter the page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Politics stub[change | change source]

Hmm... Apparently we're meant to discuss new stubs first... I've created {{Politics-stub}} today and started sorting stubs. Any objections to this stub type in what is probably quite a major area of articles? Normandy (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with it at all. It would be useful to identify further potential stubs for creation as well since we appear to be using the {{stub}} template in nearly 9,000 articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well the reason for that was we are trying to stay as generic as possible with stubs so we don't end up with a complex system like en has. If you can think of any very generic topics for stubs that would be great. But there is a tendency to get far too specific. Politics is probably fairly generic. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't buy that when we have a {{Iowa-stub}}, a {{Romania-stub}}, a {{Belgium-stub}} and a {{Nazi-stub}} as four of our (around) 36 stub categories! We should delete the Iowa one and replace it with a US one, the Romania/Belgium stubs should be merged into a Europe stub and the Nazi stub should just be History if want to make them more general. Whaddya think? And we also should consider a {{Physics-stub}} and a {{Chemistry-stub}} since we have a {{Biology-stub}} - these are pretty fundamental in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I would get rid of/merge those as I said there is a tendency to be too specific. I completely agree with all that you said. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's a good thing! I think I may make a start by suggesting deletion for the Nazi/Iowa stubs...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Physics-stub}} and {{Chemistry-stub}} are required by this Wikipedia[change | change source]

Since we have a {{Biology-stub}}, I see no good reason not to have the subject stubs as well. They are more specific than "science" but adequately broad to be useful here. Anyone disagree? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. With Racepacket creating a lot of chem articles it might be helpful to him. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I would be willing to sort the {{sci-stub}}s to focus our work. Racepacket (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we please come to consensus on this? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no dissenters over the past week so just be bold and do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, we used to judge this by quantity rather than logic. There are still relatively few physics stubs. Could I make a plea for using as few letters as possible, eg {{chem-stub}}, and if you must, {{phys-stub}}? Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Where do you pick up the "relatively few physics stubs"? I see many articles in Category:Physics, and on a random sample of three, all were stubs... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, any reason for the shortening of names? Would make it more complex to editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It seems like a good idea, but we've had issues with "bio-stub" being used on biology articles instead of biography articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I like it. Shorter names could be {{Chem-stub}} and {{Phy-stub}}? Either way, good stub idea, I'm all for it. ---Orashmatash 21:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Japan stub?[change | change source]

I know this seems counter to the logic above since it looks like Romania and Nazi stubs may merge into a new Europe stub, but there are tons of Japan stubs. (And that isn't even counting the footballer stubs). I can identify/sort them. It would seem to make sense to have an Asia stub (and Africa) in parallel with Europe, but there are that many Japan stubs as well. Just a generic Asia stub may not get be as useful since it covers so much. Thoughts? I'd tend to think that catch-all continent level stubs make sense with individual areas of focus as needed. Thanks. Gotanda (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't create specific stubs until general ones are created. I believe an {{Asia-stub}} would be a good start in doing that. Along with perhaps a {{Africa-stub}}...? And by the way, I wasn't suggesting the Nazi-stub should "merge into a new Europe stub", I was suggesting that in the place of the Nazi-stub, you could use a History stub or a Europe stub (or both, that's permissable) whatever is most appropriate for the content of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Individual countries may be a bit too specific. Although I fear I'm contradicting myself as Nazi Germany is just one (historical) country... Normandy (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, TRM. Merge was the wrong term. I see what you mean. Gotanda (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah continent level stub should exist far before individual countries. The number of pages using a stub isn't really important. Really all that is important is a very general grouping so people working on Asia for example can go and look at any Asia stubs to expand if they want. (not that I think there really are people doing this sort of thing on this wiki.) -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Tenmei has been building out many Japan history articles/stubs lately. I may be able to do more. So maybe I'll go ahead with an Asia stub then and do some sorting with it. Gotanda (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New question: Started trying to set up Asia-stub. I was looking for artwork and that even more made me think that Asia-stub is just too broad to be useful. Couldn't find a useful map that made any sense at the size needed for the stub template. But, to have some higher order division, how about East-Asia-stub? East Asia would neatly parallel En and is a more coherent and useful grouping. I expect South Asia might follow as a stub too at some point as we continue to get more contributions from/about the subcontinent. Gotanda (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the idea of creating an East-Asia stub (with future stubs being South-Asia, Central-Asia, etc.). Recalling when I studied world history in school, the sections were always broken up in those categories. Asia is simply too diverse to have a catch-all like Asia-stub. [+piccolo] 00:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember that we're talking about stubs here. The stub category structure does not need to mirror the article category structure. Think more about what the categories would do for us. They aren't needed to find articles someone is interested in, because stub articles should also have regular categories and be findable that way. Do you have any estimate of how many articles would fit in any of these proposed stub categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Right. Stub not category. So the purpose is to guide people to articles in an area they are able to/interested in working on. As to estimate... Lot's? Just for Japan (which I'm interested in as a stub so that I can guide language teachers and students in Japan there easily), just looking at Category:Japan which has 30 pages in it, I see 10-15 potential japan-stubs depending upon how you count. To break it down, currently marked as: 1 Transport stub, 2 History, 1 Tech (totally wrong), 1 US geo (???), 1 science, 4 just plain stub, and 1-5 unmarked. That would be around 50%. If if you extrapolate from there conservatively and exclude all of the football players, 20% of 2,000 (not 5,000) would leave 400 just for a potential Japan stub. Very, very rough guesstimate. Gotanda (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
To be frank I actually prefer just a geo-stub. So I don't actually see an asia-stub to be too big. Heck I am still of the opinion we probably shouldn't have switched from just the plain stub. Very few people here go looking for articles to edit based on the stub sitting on them. Heck we didn't even have categories on stubs untill a couple months ago (some still don't) so people couldn't do it. (not saying people don't go expanding stubs....but I highly doubt they search for the next article they are going to expand based on the tag. on simple anyways) Tagging stubs here has mostly been a make work project to make people that don't want to work on articles feel like they are contributing, the people with edit countitus basically. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible to revisit this now?[change | change source]

Right now there are over 1,700 articles marked Asia-stub. Over 1,000 of those actually have the Japan-stub added, but redirected to Asia-stub. I'd like to propose recreating the Japan-stub category and changing the redirect so that Japan-stub is a distinct category.


  • Japan-stub makes up over half the Asia-stubs.
  • It is over the latest threshold of 1,000
  • Creating a separate category and stub makes it easier to do maintenance. There will be an alphabetical sort at the top unlike the now hard to find "What links here". It will make it easier for people knowledgable about or interested in Japan to find stubs that right now are mixed with Chinese cities, districts in Pakistan etc.
  • Sub-categories of Asia such as Southeast Asia or East Asia are not distinct enough and will cause headaches. Stepping from continent level to country level is the clearest.

Other comments

  • Sorry I messed this up the first time around.
  • I have several projects lined up that can use this stub as an organizational point. Yes, I could make a project under my userpage, but I don't want it to be too closely associated with one person. It looks better and more "official" if it isn't under one user.
  • Upcoming projects to get new editors in:
  • two student reading and writing courses (one spring and one autumn) with Japanese students
  • accepted for a teacher workshop specifically about using SEWP at this conference in Hiroshima.
  • accepted for a presentation on simplification and writing for non-native readers at this conference.
  • other publications and teacher development projects in the works, but it is much easier to do them if there is a good link to hang them from
  • talking with one Tokyo-area university about switching from a reading textbook to SEWP content for reading courses

Whew! I hope I've made my case. I'd really like to see this through to improve the wiki and most especially to attract new editors. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • There doesn't seem to be any objection, so I'll probably go ahead with this as soon as I have time. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Go seem pretty obsessed to get it done so you might as well. Though I did notice a tonne of things marked as japan stub that should be marked bio instead as if you notice on the project page it does mention the country stubs etc should not be used for bios. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. I went ahead and recreated the stub and the category. Something is behaving differently from how I expected. The Category:Japan_stubs only shows articles that have been edited after the stub and category were recreated. Is that the way it works? I thought that category page would automatically pick up all of the articles tagged with the stub template. Or, should I just wait because the database needs to catch up or something? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It will take a bit for the job queue to catch up with the changes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, DJ. That' s what I thought, but i just wanted to make sure I hadn't made an error. Gotanda (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Education stubs?[change | change source]

At present, there are many stub articles covering education topics and specific colleges and universities. But I cannot find a stub template for education. Some of these stub articles are tagged "sports stubs", but that gives completely the wrong idea. A university article is about the entire university, not just sports teams. We could use the nation stub of the country where the university is located, but it would be useful to have a separate stub template to cover these articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lang-stub[change | change source]

Hello! I was thinking, we should probably create a language stub tag. I can see it was created previously, but was redirected for not being discussed here. Regardless, I think it would be a good tag to have regarding the large number of articles we have on languages. --Orashmatash 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How many language stubs do you see? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I suppose that's a fair point. I'll check around and I'll see. --Orashmatash 16:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dog-stub[change | change source]

A stub I recently created, dog-stub, has been redirected by a user. I believe that, because of the many dog breeds and types, we should keep this stub, if a consensus can be reached. Shakinglord (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How many stubs do we currently have that would fit under this stub category? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
So far, ive counted at least 61. I probably missed some. Dozens more will be created. Shakinglord (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Unneeded and unnecessary, especially at 61. Move along, please. Goblin 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

Too small a grouping...would fit better under biology stub. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand, countless more articles on dogs will be created, as I am in the process of translationg pages from English to Simple English. Right now may not be a good time for it but perhaps later the issue will be brought up. Shakinglord (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
At simple wiki we try to only have generic stubs because we try to be simple. Chances are we will never need a dog stub because dog will never be generic enough. -DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Stub articles about music groups[change | change source]

Should these articles be under music stubs or biography stubs? I've seen them in both. I think they fit better under biography, but I'd like other input. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would put the groups themselves under music as the group is an entity (usually a business officially not a person) and individual bio articles about members of the group under both. You aren't limited to one stub per article. -DJSasso (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I asked because the text for the biography stub tag says "about a person or group of people". --Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Sex-stub}}[change | change source]

The above somehow got under the radar and has now been extant for just under two years. Approximately twenty-four articles use the stub type, far below the minimum threshold. This is a message to state that those stubs will be altered to {{bio-stub}} in in the next 48 hours, with the stub type then QDd. Thanks, Goblin 04:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!

How about changing the articles to plain old {{stub}} instead? I don't see any that are biographies. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I think he means Biology-stub or sci-stub or med-stub. Yottie =talk= 12:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Redirected as I usually do when I find stubs that didn't come through this page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Visarts?[change | change source]

Could I raise once again the question of the plastic arts (a.k.a. 'visual arts': painting, sculpture and similar). We have no plastic arts stub to balance the performing arts stub, and also no general arts stub. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprised we don't have art-stub really... How many visual arts articles do we have? How many would fit into that criteria? I'm happy with having a general art stub, just really no idea how many articles the visual arts stub would have. Normandy 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. Category:Art is quite large, and has about 20 sub-categories. Of course, in some cases other stubs could be chosen. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)It would need to be visual arts because arts is ambiguous to performing arts etc. I thought it was already decided to create one. Guess I will need to go read past discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually looks like people said don't create. My memory is shot in the morning. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Chemistry and physics stubs[change | change source]

As discussed a few months back, I would propose we create these two stubs to complement the existing biology stub and have a whizz throught the {{sci-stub}} articles to see which could be better categorised.... Any dissenters? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
These stubs have received no specific objections since their proposal back in October, so I have been bold and created {{chem-stub}} along with its category (just to decrease the workload, it would be too much to create them both at once). -Orashmatash (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have tended to the stub sorting. After the sorting, there are 524 chemistry stubs; there will probably be more so feel free to have another run over the categories. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Part two; I have created {{physics-stub}} along with its category. Stub sorting in progress. -Orashmatash (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stub sorting complete. As with the chemistry stubs there are likely to be articles which I have missed so do feel free to go over the categories again. -Orashmatash (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Asia stubs[change | change source]

Hello there,

to me the category Asia-stubs looks quite full; in that context, I propose we create subcategories:

  • Geographically:
  • "North Asia": Asian part of Russia + Mongolia
  • "East Asia": Japan ,Both Korea, China, Taiwan, Vietnam
  • "Central Asia": Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kasachstan, Kirgistan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan
  • "South Asia": Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
  • "Southeast Asia": Brunei, Myanmar/Burma, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand
  • "West Asia": Egypt,Armenia, Aserbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jemen, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Cyprus (both of them).
  • For each category, we also create a subcategory for "languages","geography", and "political movements" (parties, and such).
  • When we get more than say 300 articles for a subject, we create a subcategory (The Japan-stubs, tpo be rooted in the "East Asia Stubs"

The geographic stubs I proposed have the problem that some countries are mentioned more than once, or that they are not geographically in Asia, but culturally so. I also don't want to discuss these aspects categorisation (Eg.: Vietnam is listed where it culturally belongs, not where it is geographically.) All I want is to geta workable category system, and not discuss whether to put Vietnam with China, or with Cambodia. Thoughts? --Eptalon (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see 729 articles in Category:Asia stubs. That is not excessive for a stub category. The 300-article proposed cutoff is definitely not excessive. We don't categorize stubs as finely as we do regular articles. If we do get to the point where we need to break it down, I think this scheme would be hard to work with because folks would have to keep looking up what country goes where. I think the next level of breakdown would be individual countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Subcategories proposed reflect common usage. Except for a few cases (like Vietnam, or Armenia), almost anybody would place "Turkey" into the West Asia category, or India in the South Asia category. — This unsigned comment was added by Eptalon (talk • changes).
Most people wouldn't know to call those areas what you are calling them so thus would have to look up what is in what. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
While the minimum we even consider is 300 we have generally tried to be over 1000 which is why we recently merged some countries back into the continent stubs that had less than 1000. The Asia stub is well below 1000 so there isn't really much of a point to split it yet since no actual subgroup has hit 1000 articles. We have actually been trying to cut down the number of stub types lately, this would actually counteract that work. Like Auntof6 the next natural split would be countries like we do with Europe. We are, our stub system needs to be simpler than en which means more generic groupings so we should stick with continents until the numbers rise significantly for whatever subgroup you want to split out. For example in Europe the only countries split out have 1000 articles already. So once an individual country hits 1000 we can easily split it out. Remember stubs are not for replicating the category system. We already have a category system. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I may have a perhaps naive question: Except for different types of automated analysis, in what way is a category with 500+ articles in t (and no subcategories) useful to humans? - A few more or less random clicks: Chishima Province, Blue Mosque, Yerevan, Keelung City, Riasti dialect and Tenbun. All I see so far that most of the articles in the category seem to be Japan related. This category is not useful except to say "Look these articles are about Asia". So: Either we find meaningful subdivisions so the category becomes useful to a human, or we close it down, as it does not provide more information than the simpler stub tag. --Eptalon (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The only purpose these categories serve is for people to see what articles are tagged with a specific stub. They are not meant to give any more information than that. That is what the normal category system is for. Prior to a couple weeks ago there were no Asia related stubs at all, the reason why they are mostly about japan is because there is currently someone tagging Japan articles and not necessarily other countries yet. This category is the sub-categorization at the moment of the {{geo-stub}} and plain {{stub}}. These categories are not really for the humans except to give people a list of all stubs in a particular type. These are maintenance categories. Article space categories are the ones meant to be useful to human readers. Again stubs (and their categories) are not meant to replicate the actual category system. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Arts[change | change source]

Once again, I think there should be recognition of the plastic arts (painting, sculpture, ceramics, graphic art, design...) by having either:

  1. An arts-stub template, or
  2. A plastic arts-stub template

Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said last time I would call it visual-arts if I were to make one. Or as you said make a parent generic category just called arts that would be above the performing arts and see how that goes and possibly move to the visual arts if we do see there are a lot of articles for it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems sensible to start with a parent arts-stub. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

UK Stub[change | change source]

What happened to UK stub? Where is the discussion? Thank you, DJDunsie (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It was merged into the Europe stub with all country stubs that were less than 1k articles. The discussion about getting rid of the smaller country stubs is above. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
And in looking back there was never a discussion to create a uk stub so it shouldn't have existed anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean, if we create enough UK articles, we can get the UK-stub tag back? DJDunsie (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, put in work creating new stubs so a stub category can be created, or put in work to improve existing stubs so the category isn't needed... decisions, decisions! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say the same. A stub tag is, essentially, a maintenance tag. It means the article needs work. We should be trying to reduce the amount of articles tagged with it. Osiris (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
That is always what confuses me...the idea is we want less articles tagged with a stub tag...the whole point of stub tags is to get people to improve the article to remove the stub tag. We don't want more stub articles created....the goal is to have zero articles tagged with a stub. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to basics[change | change source]

I've noticed some people putting two stub tags on pages with much more than 1,500KB of text. It's sad to see good people spending their time putting multiple tags onto pages that don't need any. At the same time. others are putting up hundreds of pages with single sentences saying 'X is a town in Y'. All these people should do less and do it better! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At least the 2-stub per page problem now has a workable solution.. (see simple talk about {{multistub}}) though if 1.5K is a stub.. a non-stub version of that article must be realy big.. If History of Europe was only 1.5K, that might be considered a stub.. but not most articles unless its got a really big infobox, lots of cats and a long interwiki list but only one line of text. --Creol(talk) 08:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he means 1,500 bytes (characters). There's no real definition, but my personal guideline when tagging only ever applies to the body of text. Using the size of the page, as Creol says, is misleading when given infoboxes, interwikis, categories, template and other hidden markup. AWB sets its own limit at 500 words. Osiris (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I was referring to a comment on WP:Stub, which I took to be the standard when I joined the wiki. Of course, it does mean real text which, if short, has to properly explain what the title means. 500 words strikes me as much too high for this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It's just AWB's limit. I should've been clearer though- that's it's limit where it'll take the stub tag off automatically (i.e., >500=not stub). For it to add the tag automatically, it has to be less than 300 (visible) words. Everyone has their own "rule" though. As long as they're not being added to huge pages or edit-warred over, I don't think it's something to fret over. Osiris (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Stub has to do with content not length really. Like Creol mentions an article like "History of North America" while being 75kb large might actually still be a stub because it misses out on large sections of the topic matter. That being said if something is a stub or not is largely a personal opinion. If you see one you don't think should be tagged as a stub remove it. It really isn't that big a deal, and all this obsessing over stubs really makes things worse. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaur stubs[change | change source]

Anyone think dinosaur stubs would be a good idea?

No, we have one stub for the whole of biology. It's all we need. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

TW: twinklestub.js[change | change source]


Hello! I coded a new tool for implementation in Twinkle. Please see the picture right.

I have integrated this tool into the Twinkle package, see here. All stubs listed here in the Simple Stub Project have been added. Face-wink.svg --weltforce (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks very helpful! Two questions:
  • Does it work in all skins? I use Twinkle here, but I don't see the "TW" tab under Monobook.
  • Does something require updating when stub types are added or removed?
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It works with Monobook, but Vector is prefered because Monobook can cause style problems sometimes. Are you sure you implemented Twinkle alright? Twinkle can be found at User:LightForce/twinkle.js.
Yes, to update stubs you need to modify User:LightForce/twinkletag.js. --weltforce (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I implemented it from User:EhJJ/twinkle.js, which has always been the standard location. Is there a particular reason you moved it?
What needs to be changed at User:LightForce/twinkletag.js? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to replace




because I did major changes to the entire Twinkle construction.

About adding more templates to the script:

form.append( { type:'header', label:'ADD LABELTEXT HERE' } );
	form.append( {
			type: 'radio',
			name: 'mtpl',
			list: [
					label: '{{Stub-Template1}}',
					value: 'Stub-Template',
					tooltip: 'ADD TOOLTIP HERE' 
					label: '{{Stub-Template2}}',
					value: 'Stub-Template2',
					tooltip: 'ADD TOOLTIP HERE' 

This wood create a new header with {{Stub-Template1}} and {{Stub-Template2}}.

And do not forgot to add following code into the switch section:

... ...
				case "Stub-Template1":
					code = "\{\{" +  self.params.normalized+ "\}\}";
					content = text + "\n" + code;
				case "Stub-Template2":
					code = "\{\{" +  self.params.normalized+ "\}\}";
					content = text + "\n" + code;
					code = "\{\{" +  self.params.normalized+ "\}\}";
					content = code + "\n" + text;
... ...

or stubs won't be displayed at the end of the page, but on the top. --weltforce (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Business stubs[change | change source]

I'd like to add following 2 stub templates:

  • {{Business-stub}} - anything related to business but not companies
    • {{Company-stub}} - articles about companies

Thoughts? --weltforce (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What is your estimate of how many of this kind of stub we have? I think the current quasi-threshold is 1,000. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think more than 150 companies and more than 500 pages relevant to business ;) --weltforce (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't reach the "threshold". Do you have a particular reason for wanting these stubs, other than just organizing? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No, but I think "business" is a really "general" topic like "history", "technology" etc. But I don't see a treshold in "US-actor-stub", do we have more than 1,000 pages there? --weltforce (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of stub categories is not just to organize. There are quite a few stub categories that have fewer than 1000 articles. Reasons for this include: the threshold used to be lower; a category may have had more articles, but some were worked on, expanded, and the stub tag removed; someone committed to working on articles in a particular category, so the category was created to help actual work get done. The existence of these categories is not an argument to create more with a lower number of articles. As DJSasso says, the stub category structure does not need to mirror the regular category structure. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, couldn't have said it better. The threshold used to be lower, we have actually been working over the last couple of years to merge stubs together and reduce the number of stubs we have. For some stubs that has been impossible to do because the stub is already as general as we can get. In some cases like the US-actor stubs the reason it was created was that the vast majority of actor stubs were us actor stubs, and the a very large portion of us bio stubs were also us actor stubs. It became a good idea to have one stub instead of two in that case, and yes once it is finished being tagged I think it will be over 1000. Its already at 800+. Also I have to echo that remember the point of stubs is to work on them and eventually remove them from the category. So in a lot of cases that has happened and the numbers have dropped. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What about just one for economics in general? Just from patrolling new pages I've always wished we had one of those and that way we can shove everything in it and see how many we've got before we diffuse to more specific topics. Osiris (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Business-stub, Company-stub, Economics-stub, Culture-stub. That would be my suggestions. --weltforce (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest {{Organization-stub}} instead of Company because it is too specific and would allow non-profits and various other groups. {{Economics-stub}} might be ok but I am not sure we have 1000 for it either. The others I doubt we have anywhere close to the 1000. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, {{Organization-stub}}, {{Economics-stub}} and {{Culture-stub}}. Is that ok? --weltforce (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well again as I said I probably wouldn't have a culture one because I doubt we have enough stubs. For example there are already stubs for continents. Culture for any country on a given continent would go under that continents stub. So European Culture for example already belongs under the Europe stub. North American under the North American one etc etc. The idea on simple is to have as few stubs as possible to keep things simple. Remember stubs aren't for replicating the category system. Lots of people confuse the purpose of the two. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if nobody opposes, I would like to create {{Organization-stub}} and {{Economics-stub}}, is that right so? --weltforce (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I have no problem with it, but as per usual, wait the 7 days to make sure no one objects. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
All right. --weltforce (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Word stub?[change | change source]

Many "articles" are really about words. And it is really helpful to create the template because it goes specificley in like other templates do. So I am willing to create the template, if you Agree to let me create it. Thank you --Aaqib Talk!| Hola! 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • My thoughts on this:
    • The reason for tagging articles as stubs is so that editors can find articles that need to be expanded. Is anyone planning to concentrate on expanding these articles? Is there even potential to expand them?
    • If an article is basically just a dictionary definition, it might be better to make sure it's in Wiktionary, then ask for it to be deleted at rfd.
    • How many of these articles do you see? We want at least around 1,000 articles before creating a new stub type.
  • --Auntof6 (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is usefull, why don't you go threw and review Wikipedia and especially the Alphabets. Many categories you can see alphabets and take a look at a couple or few. If you do not see any diminutive articles about alphabets. Report here. Also, I have "Rfd" many pages that have dictionary defenitions and all has been vain. Last, many pages equaling this can be permitted in Wikipedia. --Aaqib Talk!| Hola! 20:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who wants a change here, so it is up to you to justify it. If your RFDs have failed, that probably means that the community doesn't agree with you about these articles. That's just the way it is sometimes. I imagine many editors here see articles they don't think are worthwhile, but we have to consider the bigger picture. I know there are some I could do without!
Anyway, if the issue is that you think the articles shoukd be deleted, then marking them as stubs is not the answer.
By the way, you do not need to leave me talkback messages because I watch this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not a Checkuser, (and it's should). I pretty much a brand new user, and I have joined a new wiki. --Aaqib Talk!| Hola! 00:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear this wouldn't be an appropriate stub. I think the user misunderstands what stubs are. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan bio stub?[change | change source]

Can we please allow this, we have seen many of Sri Lanka pages. --Aaqib 23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How many? The requirement is around 1,000. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done to much work, I have been using {{bio-stub}} for around 100 Sri Lankan biography articles. --Aaqib 01:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sweden geogeaphy stub[change | change source]

I created Template:Sweden-geo-stub. Can we allow it? J 1982 (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not without a discussion and approval here. I have deleted the category and redirected the stub. Our requirement is a minimum of 1,000 articles before creating a new stub type. Do you think there are that many? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we use {{europe-stub}} as the target, like we've done for {{portugal-geo-stub}}, and for {{india-geo-stub}} for Asia? Osiris (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it doesn't matter to me. I'll make the change. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Since it is already created redirecting is fine. I usually only redirect if there are a bunch of articles already linking to it so I don't have to make useless edits reverting it on those pages only to some time in the future have to readd it again. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was thinking, and that's what I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Europe-geo-stub[change | change source]

Europe-geo-stub could be used for geography realated articles in Europe. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Geo" is geography, not biology. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't looking and I got mixed up. I meant geography. Will it work? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking if we can create it? First, we'd need at least 1,000 articles that would fit in it that aren't already covered by {{France-geo-stub}}. Do we have that many? Second, we'd need a reason to create it. Creating stub categories isn't like creating "regular" categories. We don't create stub categories just because there are articles to fit them. Are you (or is someone else) planning to do a lot of work on Europe geography stubs? Other editors may have other concerns, but those are the ones I can think of off hand. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was planning that but not many articles. I didn't know the process is so hard. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We just want to keep the stub area simple -- not a lot of different stub categories. We create them to make it easier to work on the stubs, not just to organize them. If you can say what you're thinking of working on specifically, someone might be able to produce a list for you that you could work from. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I understand. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Language stub tag[change | change source]

This stub tag would cover languages (such as Abkhaz language), grammer and parts of speech (such as Genitive case), and alphabets (including leters). Looking over the stubs category, I'm pretty sure it meets the 1k minimum. (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you be actively working to expand the stubs in this category? We don't want the stub category structure to be as complex as either our regular category structure or enwiki's stub structure, so we don't create stub categories just because there are 1,000 stubs to put into them. We create them to make it easier for people who are actively working on stubs in a given area. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Being that you don't have many edits here I would probably want to see evidence of that. As Auntof6 mentions we don't really create stubs unless there is a large need for them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Financial/money stub tag[change | change source]

This would cover the financial and money articles, such as terms (Bond (finance)), currencies (Denomination (currency), East Caribbean dollar), banks/institutions (Central Bank of Azerbaijan]], ), theories (Classical economics),etc. Again, pretty sure this would meet the 1k minimum. (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC) (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you be actively working to expand the stubs in this category? We don't want the stub category structure to be as complex as either our regular category structure or enwiki's stub structure, so we don't create stub categories just because there are 1,000 stubs to put into them. We create them to make it easier for people who are actively working on stubs in a given area. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Being that you don't have many edits here I would probably want to see evidence of that. As Auntof6 mentions we don't really create stubs unless there is a large need for them. In this case I would be more prone to creating a business stub which is much more general and would apply. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess buisness stub would work. Besides, I don't have to be the only one editing these articles. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can expand these articles. (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to be the only one editing them, but we want to know that someone is going to actively work on them in the near future. So far, you're the only one who has shown interest. The purpose of a stub category is for editors to find stubs to work on in a particular area. We don't want to create a new type just to have articles sit in the new category. How about this: come up with a list of the articles that would fit the new stub category (you could put the list in your userspace). Then, to address Djsasso's concern, expand a good number of them (maybe 200 or so) to show your commitment. Then come back here and we'll be more willing to approve the new type. Keep in mind that there doesn't have to be a separate stub type for you to work on the articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I can create the list. But sorting the stubs into seperate categories might make it easier for editors interested in (or knowladgable of) particular areas to find stubs to expand. For example, there are nearly 5,000 geography stubs. Those users who are only interested in expanding Canadian stubs would have to comb through the category to find these articles. (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true, it's just not the way we manage the stubs here. We don't want the stub category structure to be as complex as enwiki's. That's one of the ways we keep things simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, we try to keep our stub categories to as few as possible to keep things simple. Its part of the goal of this wiki to have things as simplified as possible. Not just the language used. We do it in both our stub tags and our categories. We try to balance having as few as possible with having enough to do the job well. If your intention is to just sort the stubs into more stub categories then you might want to be aware that we don't really work that way here, its not about categorizing them into another organizational structure as much as it is about warning someone who works on those articles that the article is a stub. With so few editors here we don't specialize quite so much here as happens on so the complex and over-bloated system that uses is not needed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

UK-actor-stub[change | change source]

There should be a UK-actor-stub. If there's a US-actor-stub why not a UK one? There's 408 article about UK actors. Do comedians or television/radio personalities count? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The threshold is 1000, so I would say no on this one. The comedians and tv/radio personalities would count only if they are also actors -- an actor category is not for entertainers in general. If you read previous discussions, you will see that we don't create stub categories just because there are already similar ones. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
In that case, there should be a UK-bio-stub, which would include all stub articles of Britons. Jim Michael (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you actively expanding UK bios beyond stubs and removing the stub tags? If you aren't actively involved in doing that there is generally no point in creating the stub because all it does is cause people to sort the stub without actually fixing the issue that that tag is there for in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That argument could be used to not create stub categories of any description, and to abolish all but one of those currently in existence, leaving only {stub} itself in existence. If a thousand articles is the threshold, then UK-bio-stub easily qualifies. There are well over a thousand stub articles of Britons. Jim Michael (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, that is the point. Generally we only like to create new stubs when absolutely necessary, as in people are actively using them to expand articles. The ones that currently exist are mostly just holdovers from a time when we weren't as strict and there wasn't much point in getting rid of them once they were created. (obviously not the case for all of them). I don't have a problem creating this stub, I was mostly just asking to get an idea on if someone was working on it actively. I can do a look with AWB to see if there are 1000, on quick glace I am doubting there are being that there are only 2500 UK stubs of all types and only just over 5000 bio stubs in total of all types. I doubt 20% of all bio stubs are UK actors. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry just realized you were talking about UK bios in general, was tripped up since the header for the section was uk-actors. Still have a hard time thinking 20% of all bios are from the UK but I will run AWB over it and see what I get. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised, there actually is, though barely. 1076 people in the Category:British people and subcategories are marked with bio-stub. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Still, I think we should be conservative about creating new stub categories. The 1,000 threshold should be a requirement, but not the only one, or we could still end up duplicating the non-stub category tree, which we don't want to do. Maybe we could ask the requestor to show that they do intend to do work in the proposed area by actually doing good expansion for a certain number of the articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup I totally agree. -DJSasso (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The original requestor, TDKR, has already demonstrated that by significantly expanding many biographies, although I have not counted how many of them are of Brits. I broadened the suggestion from British actors to British people because his request was refused due to there not being a thousand bios of British actors on Simple. Jim Michael (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To sort stubs or not to sort stubs?[change | change source]

I've seen admins here tell editors not to sort stubs just for the sake of sorting them. I went along with that because I trusted that the admins knew what they were talking about. However, when I asked User: not to do a lot of stub sorting (partly because I don't agree with how he/she was categorizing and partly because of the above), he/she made a good point: our documentation at Wikipedia:Stub and Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project says that articles shouldn't sit with just {{stub}} on them for very long, but should be put into other stub categories. That seems contrary to what we have told users.

In view of that, I think we should either change the documentation or stop telling editors not to sort stubs. If we change the documentation, it should be done after some discussion, not on the fly just to make it OK to discourage sorting.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is our habit to put stubs into the most descriptive category, and as an editor I do sometimes go through the stubs in subjects which interest me. Sorting stubs is only a housekeeping activity but, if done at all, it should be done correctly. It is much worse to put topics in wrong categories than to leave them as general stubs. (In general, it is right to put the brakes on an editor who is doing something which makes the wiki worse rather than better)
I do see pages with one or two paragraphs which are quite well written and complete in themselves. They sit with a stub label for the rest of their lives. In such cases the label is a waste of time. It suggests the editor who put the label on did not actually read the content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
As Macdonald-ross mentions some people slap the label on without having read the article and then they just sit there with the tag forever. The instructions don't actually contradict our practice. One of the biggest reasons we suggest not to go through stub tagging/sorting sprees is for this very reason. It tends to cause articles to sit with stubs forever. There is no actual contradiction here. That being said there isn't much difference between being tagged with the generic stub tag and a more detailed one in terms of how long they sit with them on it. And the biggest reason is that people tend to try and shoehorn articles into stubs that they don't belong in. That is the biggest problem with one of the recent mass stub sorters. (I believe the one you are referring to) They kept putting articles into stubs they didn't fit into making a large mess. Changing a stub tag here and there isn't a problem, its the mass sorting that is the issue. The Simple Stub Project was actually the result of trying to stop mass tagging/sorting. We had too many problems with it so we created the project as a way slow it down. That being said I would just remove that sentence as it can be misinterpreted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Media tag[change | change source]

This would act as a parent category for the tv and movie categories, while also covering newspapers, internet sites, comics, and comic characters. (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Other than internet-sites and newspapers all of those things are already covered by other stubs. Comics and comic characters would fall under literature and the parent cat of tv and movies is performing-arts. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

General arts tag[change | change source]

This would act as a parent category for the performing arts and lit cats, while also covering visual arts, such as sculpture, photography, and paintings. (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This is discussed above, there aren't the necessary articles to create a need for this. If there aren't people actively working to expand those stubs then the generic stub template is appropriate for them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
As I understood it, a minimum of 1,000 stubs were necessary for the creation of a new stub tag. The performing arts and lit tags all together already have over 10,000 articles. (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we want at least 1,000 pages, but having that many doesn't mean a new stub type will necessarily be created. We also want there to be someone actively working to expand the stubs. Too often, all we get when we create a new stub type is a lot of stub sorting that doesn't actually help anything. If some were to expand 100 or so articles beyond stub length, that would show that they really meant to work in the area. As for this particular request, we wouldn't count the articles that were in what would become subcategories, plus I don't think literature would go under arts anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)