Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WT:SSP
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5

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:138.210.194.18 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. 64.6.124.31 (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. 64.6.124.31 (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. 64.6.124.31 (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)

South America stub tag[change | change source]

This would cover all South American-topic stub articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We keep our category structure in general, and the stub categories specifically, simpler than other Wikipedias. Show that there are at least 1000 stubs that would be in this category, and show evidence that someone is actively working to expand those stubs, then come back here and ask again. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I have repeatedly tried to show that there are at least 1k stubs in these topics and have been repeatedly prevented from doing so. You guys can't insist that I do one thing, then prevent me from doing that thing. You guys probably should decide if you want me to show that this proposal meets the 1k minimum before making that condition. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I will attempt one more time to see if these tags meet the 1,000 stub minimum requirement. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, but you can't work in subpages like you have been doing. If you want to work in subpages, you need to register and use a subpage in your own userspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this latest attempt has been (once again) deleted before I was finished, I say just go ahead and created the stub tags and hope for the best. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly clear that you guys will never allow me to prove that these topics meet the 1,000 stub minimum. So we can always just create the tags and hope for the best. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Africa stub tag[change | change source]

This would cover all Africa-topic stub articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We keep our category structure in general, and the stub categories specifically, simpler than other Wikipedias. Show that there are at least 1000 stubs that would be in this category, and show evidence that someone is actively working to expand those stubs, then come back here and ask again. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand stub tag[change | change source]

This would cover all stubs dealing with Australia and New Zealand. It could also included Oceania/Australasia as well. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We keep our category structure in general, and the stub categories specifically, simpler than other Wikipedias. Show that there are at least 1000 stubs that would be in this category, and show evidence that someone is actively working to expand those stubs, then come back here and ask again. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

UK people stub[change | change source]

This is for all biographies of UK people. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We keep our category structure in general, and the stub categories specifically, simpler than other Wikipedias. Show that there are at least 1000 stubs that would be in this category, and show evidence that someone is actively working to expand those stubs, then come back here and ask again. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you guys will most likely not allow me to find out if this and the next two tags meet the 1k minimum, how about this: create these tags but redirect them to the general biography tag. If these tags reach 1,000, then make them official stub tags. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It has already been shown under the heading UK-actor-stub that there are well over a thousand stubs of Brits on Simple. There are several editors expanding some of those articles. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the proposal meets both conditions (1,000 stub minimum and people working on it). Then this stub tag can be created. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Those are requirements, but not necessarily the only ones. Where are you seeing the 1000 entries, and what is the evidence that someone is working on them? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said in my last comment, it has been proved under the heading UK-actor-stub at the top of this page that there are well over a thousand stubs of Brits on Simple. That was a few months ago; the number now will be higher. There are editors working on some of them, which can be seen by looking through New changes. No-one is specifically centring their editing on stub bios of Brits, but there are several editors expanding stub bios in general (including adding infoboxes), and many of them are of Brits. We have more bios of Brits than of any other nationality, other than Americans. What are the other requirements? Jim Michael (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't make people look through new changes. If you want a new stub type, make sure there are at least 1000 articles that would fit into it, and give a list of the articles that have been worked on (or at least say who has done the work and how many articles have been changed). If no one is specifically working on bios of British people, as you say, we certainly don't need a new stub category for it. As far as other requirements, it's this discussion. The 1000-article threshold is a requirement, but the new topic still has to be discussed. That's what we're doing here.
Remember that we don't want a lot of stub categories here. We certainly don't need to create a new one just because we happen to have 1000 stubs that fit it. If you want a new stub type just to have it, that's not a good reason. If you want it so you can find related stub articles that you are actually going to work on, there are other ways to do that. You can make a list and work on it without having a specific category for it. IP editors who aren't allowed to have subpages make a list offline or ask a registered user for permission to work in their userspace. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Australian people stub tag[change | change source]

This is for all biographies of Australians. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We keep our category structure in general, and the stub categories specifically, simpler than other Wikipedias. Show that there are at least 1000 stubs that would be in this category, and show evidence that someone is actively working to expand those stubs, then come back here and ask again. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If it will make you feel better, this stub can initially redirect back to the general biography stub tag until it reaches 1,000. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Since creating a list showing that this (and the following two proposals) meet the 1,000 stub minimum, maybe we could do this: created the stub tags but redirect them to the general biography stub tag. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Canadian people stub tag[change | change source]

This is for all biographies of Canaidans. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We keep our category structure in general, and the stub categories specifically, simpler than other Wikipedias. Show that there are at least 1000 stubs that would be in this category, and show evidence that someone is actively working to expand those stubs, then come back here and ask again. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't force-fit[change | change source]

Please do not force-fit articles into stubs which are inappropriate. Graphology in its first sense in not a science. Dwarf (mythology) is absolutely nothing to do with religion. I have had to change back about twenty of these force-fits over the last couple of days. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why we have issues with people who do stub sorting and why we highly discourage actively doing it unless you are personally working on articles in that stub. I have had to undo/fix hundreds if not thousands by now of the IP editors changes where he has done similar things. Based on his ban on en.wiki he is very close to having me block him indefinitely per OneStrike. Especially when he makes comments like the one above where he says he will create a stub anyways even if we won't let him. -DJSasso (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

UK geo stub tag[change | change source]

This would be for all UK geo stubs. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You know the drill. We want to know that there are at least 1000 articles and someone committing to actively working on them before we discuss. You haven't shown either of those things here. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll start on showing the 1,000 article minimum. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to ask...are you actually expanding any of these stubs into full fledged articles? The reason I ask is because despite the number of times and ways we have explained things to you, you continue to try and create new stubs and keep stub sorting. The whole reason we have the 1000 article requirement is to prevent the type of editing you are insisting on trying to do. Its like you just refuse to listen. So I will repeat, we do not stub sort on this wiki unless you are actively working on that specific stub topic and are actively expanding articles in the topic into full fledged artics. We do not tag stubs just for the sake of tagging them. For most articles the generic stub tag is the preferable tag. -DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
By "stub sorting", I take it you mean modifying the tag to the appropriate stub category (for example, changing a simple geo tag to a US-geo tag). I did not create these specific categories, I am merely making sure that articles are added to these categories. I haven't seen any policy pages which state that I must be expanding stubs in these categories in order to add stubs to them. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not stating that you can't add stubs to articles. But your constant attempts to create new stubs is an issue. And you also seem to try to force articles into more specific stubs which are not appropriate for those articles. We have had to undo hundreds of edits of yours because you are trying to shoehorn articles into stub types that are not appropriate for them. In general we frown on mass maintenance tagging and stub sorting of articles on this wiki because more often than not we find it harms the wiki more than it helps it. The purpose of stub articles on this wiki is to help facilitate the actual expanding of the articles as opposed to just another way to categorize them as is done on en.wiki. It is more than ok for you to place a stub tag on an article you come across that is a stub. But to go out of your way to do say a 100 or 200 tagings in a day if you aren't actually intending on expanding those articles is frowned upon. While not against the rules it is definitely considered disruptive, especially when you declare things like you will create a stub even if people are against its creation. And disruption is against policy. So you can either choose to learn what the communities norms are, or you can continue to push against them. One will allow you to keep editing, and one is likely to get you indefinitely blocked due to WP:ONESTRIKE because of your block on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Following communities norms are getting me in trouble already. For example, I have tried repeatedly to show that the stub tag proposals meet the 1,000 stub minimum for creation, it would have taken only a week or two at most to finish each list necessary to show the requirement, then the list would have been deleted only once. Yet each and every time I try meet this one requirement, the list is deleted. If I had been allowed to finish the list, then we would have proof whether or not the proposal meet the requirement and the list only would have been deleted a single time, instead of repeatedly.

If you guys would have allowed me to finish this first step, then I would have went on to expand the stubs. This would have meet the other requirement that "someone [is] actively expanding articles in that topic area from stubs to full fledged articles". It would be one thing if I was actually disrupting things around here, like adding nonsense to articles. But to insist that certain conditions be meet before creating a stub tag, then blocking me for trying to prove those conditions are already meet is not disruptive. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No one here is stopping you from showing that there are 1000 articles in the new categories you want. You are making an incorrect assumption that you can or need to do the work here on Wikipedia. Since you are not a registered user, you cannot have subpages in userspace. We also do not use non-user subpages for that kind of work. That leaves you other alternatives, which I have mentioned before. You can do the work offline on your own computer, then publish the list on this page. You could ask a registered user for permission to use their userspace to do the work. Just because there doesn't seem to be a way to do the work her on-Wiki, does not mean we are stopping you from doing it altogether.
The point of having stub categories at all is to work on expanding the articles in them. That can be done without sorting the stubs at all. Find an article and expand it, then another, then another, etc. Your edit history would show that you are doing the expanding.
I don't think you're understanding the philosophy here about stub categories. Don't feel too bad about that though, it also took me a while to get it. We don't manage them the same way that enwiki does. Here, it's the fewer, the better. We want at least 1000 entries before creating a new stub category, but that's just for starters. The new category also has to be reasonable in terms of not getting too detailed, and other considerations. There isn't a laundry list that, once you satisfy it, you get the new category. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Basically we used to have a system like en.wiki. For example there were 3300 stub types for biographies. The wiki decided that was overkill and not simple so they were all merged into one biography stub. The wiki worked hard at removing all the stub types (like the ones which you are trying to recreate). To be honest I am still of the opinion that we should go back to only having the six (I think it was six anyways) main stubs that were created after the deletion and purging of all the old stub types and remove all the various sub-types that have since been recreated. Almost none of them are used for what they are intended for which is expansion. So to sum it up the reason you are getting as much flak about what you are doing apart from the fact it seems you don't listen is that you are essentially seeking to undo what took a lot of work to remove in the first place without it appears to actually be doing the type of work that the stubs are meant to foster. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am being prevented from showing that these proposals meet the 1k minimum: each and every time I start a list, it is deleted and the last time I started it, I was blocked for 72 hours. Creating an account won't do much good, since it will give you guys another opportunity to block me. Insisting that a certain condition be meet in order for a new stub tag to be created and then preventing anyone from fulfilling that condition is pretty much the same as saying that the creation of any new stub tags is banned.

How about this: create a UK-geo stub tag but redirect it to the main geo stub tag. If and when it reaches 1,000, then work on the other conditions can be started. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you were blocked for repeatedly creating subpages in inappropriate places. If you were registered, you could create subpages in your userspace without being blocked for it. I have suggested other ways you could proceed, but you apparently don't want to use them. (Have you asked a registered user for permission to temporarily use a page in their userspace?) You might not be able to gather evidence in the way you'd like to, but that does not mean you are being prevented from gathering it at all. It is your choice not to register, so you have to live with the restrictions that come with that.
You are still not understanding how the approval process works. Yes, we require at least 1000 entries and evidence that someone is actively working to expand the articles, but we also require discussion about whether we want the proposed new stub category. It is not as simple as doing one or two specific things and then getting the new category. We keep our stub categories to a minimum.
I am against creating redirected stub tags for this kind of purpose. Creating them usually results in a lot of edits that don't turn out to be helpful and we're left with an unneeded template.
Finally, the point of having stub categories is for editors to find related articles to expand. You don't have to have a stub category to do that. If you're unwilling to work with the restrictions you impose on yourself by not registering, it makes me wonder whether you're interested in getting a new stub category more than in actually improving articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)