Content deleted Content added
m Fix Linter errors. |
|||
| (53 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkarchive}}
There are active discussions on this here and at [[template talk:stub#Stub Category]] and
[[Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Should templates be used to add articles to categories?]]
Line 29 ⟶ 31:
True or false: this is too large to be a valid Wikipedia category? [[User:66.245.106.175|66.245.106.175]] 16:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
: There's nothing wrong with this category. This will help editors find stub articles that they may be able to add to. It serves a very important purpose, and should not be removed just because of its size. --
: It may be big, but its valid. But of course your welcome to make this category smaller by fixing the articles. . [[User:Krik|Krik]] 08:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Line 35 ⟶ 37:
:Very true. You know what else is true, there is no '''need''' for this. Who's actually using this to fix stubs? Could that person(s) make do with this [[Media:dori.20040704.stubs.txt]] (just copy and paste it in a page to get the links, for me it was timing out since I'm on dialup) instead? [[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 04:02, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
::This category allows us to find stubs based on if they have the <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> message (which contains the link to this category). Does that text file update itself in such a way? If not, then it is not as useful for the same purpose. --
:::Do you need something that's up to the minute or would something that's one or two month old suffice? Are you telling me that you'll be done with the 56368 stubs in that text file before two months? Oh, and by the way, despite not being up to the minute, my text file is more complete than the category which only has 11295 articles. [[User:Dori|Dori]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk]] 13:59, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Line 44 ⟶ 46:
How about giving the larger letters their own categories: ''S-Stub'', for example? --[[User:Ingoolemo|Ingoolemo]]
:What I mean is, automatically have the template add [[
::This category scheme (splitting by first letter) seems to be not liked in general. I think it is a much better idea to split by topic than split by first letter if it is going to be done manually. If it is going to be done automatically, it should be a software modification that implements it, not a change in the category name. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 15:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Line 54 ⟶ 56:
:Question ... doesn't this present a technical challenge considering the number of items in the category? [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 18:28, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
*''No change''. This has come up before, and it lost before. The stub category is obsolete. The only change that should be made to it is emptying it by either extending articles or sorting stub articles into more specific stub categories. It is not worth the overhead to rename something that really should be slowly phased out. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 20:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*It's not obsolete. There are always going to be articles that are not easily sorted. I think we should mark it for renaming the next time it is discontinued and then re-added, if that makes any sense. It obviously ''should'' be ''stubs''. If we should end up removing the category from the generic stub template and then re-adding it (as has happened a few times in the past), we should use [[:Category:Stubs]] (we actually missed a great opportunity to do this when last this happened). -[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("<
*One option: Start up [[:Category:Stubs]] with a new template (maybe just [[Template:St]]) and run the two in parallel for the time being. [[:Category:Stub]] is dropping in size, and it would be easy for WP:WSS to change Stub to St for those stubs not able to be subcategorised. Given time, hopefully Category stub will dwindle away. Once it has dwindled sufficiently, then it can be merged with the new category. At the moment, however, I suspect it would cause too much strain on the servers to do one giant changeover. If not, simply '''keep as is''' - certainly deletion is the worst possible option. [[User:Grutness| Grutness]]|<sup>[[User_talk:Grutness|hello?]]</sup> [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* '''Delete, no rename''' - Category for the generic stub template is a server resource problem. Stub sorters can still find items with [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub]] . -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 18:51, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
*'''Keep as is'''. Throwing in my vote before it is interpreted that there are not enough stub sorters (I'm one) supporting this to keep it from changing or being deleted. Categorization seems to be happening at a brisk pace (based on some random page surveys) and the size of the category will hopefully get more manageable as time goes on. If we knew the rate of stub creation, that would help us to very roughly project when this size might be reached. Also, if we can mount a "merge or bust" campaign that encourages stub mergers over deletion (a significant number of stubs end up in the deletion queues) the rate of decline could be accelerated further. [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]] 23:57, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
*'''Keep as is'''. Spoke with [[User:Jamesday]], rename or delete doesn't look like a good idea. <s>'''Rename'''.'''Delete'''. The category doesn't even work properly, because of all the items in it. May as well delete. </s> --[[User:Jag123|jag123]] 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**What do you mean? It looks like it's working to me. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("<
***It was turned off a while back because of performance problems or something. Look at [[Dorama]], found using the google search for stubs. At this moment, it's a normal, generic stub, part of Category:Stub, but doesn't appear in the category. There are 18,000 hits in the stub Goolgle search, and only a fraction of that listed in the category. If the stub project ever reaches a point where stubs are controlled, then the category can be re-created, but at this point it's really useless. To clarify, even if a stub can't be categorised by an existing templates, and it's decided that the generic stub template is best, there's still no guarantee that it will show up in the category. --[[User:Jag123|jag123]] 03:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
****That's a template problem, not a category problem. Articles will show up in the category as they are edited. (And if we remove the category from the template, all the articles that are currently ''in'' the category will not move out until they are edited. There is a certain amount of inertia at work in large categories like this.) -[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("<
*****I see what you mean. I changed the category of the archeology stubs and nothing happened, as expected. In that case, Category:Stubs (if created) would contain stubs created after the template was changed (which would give Courtland an idea of how many stubs are created in a given time period) and stub sorters who find a generic stub that should remain a generic stub can make a null edit so the article "moves" categories. It wouldn't take very long for C:Stub to be emptied. Hopefully people won't forget that there are still a few thousand stubs out there that won't show up in either category, though. --[[User:Jag123|jag123]] 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', since the opportunity to express my opinion presents itself. I've always disliked the whole stub category heirarchy, it's a meta-category that shouldn't be mixed in with categories that are based on the actual subject matter. Things like [[:Category:Articles to be merged]] are fine since they're so temporary, but few things seem more permanent than stub templates. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 05:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Line 94 ⟶ 96:
==Why not in Category==
Why do stubs not feed into this category? Is it just because that would make that category too big? If so, how can we get an up to date list of all stubs? [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] 01:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:They used to. I haven't found the discussion that explains why they now are not. You can find a list of what links to the stub template at [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub]]. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("<
::No, you cannot. Whatlinks here only shows 500 results. There are ''way'' more than 500 stubs. [[User:Bacchiad|Bacchiad]] 01:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Line 113 ⟶ 115:
Might well be a good idea, since we're getting close to looking for the last ones anyway. [[User:Grutness| Grutness]]|<sup>[[User_talk:Grutness|hello?]]</sup> [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 22:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I've just done a mass of stub -> sportbio-stub changes and many of them had their last modification date being late 2004, yet I had never seen any of them in the stub list. I was therefore surprised to see that the Stub category listing is not all it seems to be. Do any of the other stub categries suffer from this too? --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 10:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::No - and it would have been unlikely, since {{
Recently [[User:D6|the D6 bot]] edited (edit and save, without change) the some 1000 pages with {{
:That would be ''very'' useful (thanks in advance!). Some more good news... with the category now containing ''under 500 articles'', we can use another hunting technique. '''We can currently hunt stubs using "What links here" from the template'''! FWIW, [[:Category:substubs]] is getting equally thin (only 350 articles now). [[User:Grutness| Grutness]]|<sup>[[User_talk:Grutness|hello?]]</sup> [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 12:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
::I ran it on the 490 pages on [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub]], the number of articles in the category is now beyond 750 (?). At least 25 were categorized while the bot was running. Only 2 of the 490 were in Category:Stubs on April 6. Once a new download version is available, I can check if we have all remaining ones. -- User:Docu
::Of course, clearing them out of the generic categories is only half the battle. Clearing them doesn't make them not stubs anymore =(...Someone actually has to write the things at some point. =) --[[User:Jemiller226|Jemiller226]] 20:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
::True of course - but at least they're going to be where editors in specialist subjects can find them easily. I do recounts of various geo-stub categories every now and again, and am pleased to see that quite a number of stubs are disappearing from them - presumably improved beyond stub level. [[User:Grutness| Grutness]]|<sup>[[User_talk:Grutness|hello?]]</sup> [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 23:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Hm .. .. I just did a count on the April 6 dump: there were 28944 articles linking to [[Template:Stub]] and only 2678 of those categorized in [[:Category:Stub]]. Even if in the meantime you categorized half of them, there should still a lot left. I will try check the categorylinks table of April 21 to see if I can can run the bot on a reasonable selection thereof. -- User:Docu
:You are working fast on this category: of those c. 26000 to add, there are just 9962 left. I didn't want to add them all at once. Besides, there are about 1600 currently (May 15) in the category. -- User:Docu
From the last dump (May 16), there were just 5700 left to add. The number of articles in the category was down to 100, before I started adding them. -- User:Docu
:Man, it's kind of discouraging to see the list get so small and in a matter of hours, return to another ''massive'' list of stubs! Oh well, at least that's one method of ensuring a bit of job (role?) security on here. =) --[[User:Jemiller226|Jemiller226]] 05:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
::once they're all done, you can start on the 10,000 bio-stubs! :) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 07:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Does this mean ''all'' the stubs that need sorting are in the list now? [[User:Bluemoose|Bluemoose]] 09:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
::Looks like it. I just did a count of articles in the category and found 23 pages, with 80 stubs on the last page (~4480 stubs total). A search for stubs on Google is reporting 4510 stubs found. Those numbers look pretty close. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 11:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
:::And that will probably include 30 or so pages like [[Wikipedia:Stub]] explaining what the template messagge looks like. '''yessss!!!''' [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 13:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
It should be complete by now. Some of the 5700 might already have been taken care of. Below, there is a breakdown by letter.
Of the last 100, 15 were in Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces, 16 in User namespace. --- User:Docu
{| border class="toccolours plainlinks" style="border-collapse:collapse" |
|-
| Letter || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=A}} A] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=B}} B] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=C}} C] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=D}} D] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=E}} E] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=F}} F] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=G}} G] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=H}} H] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=I}} I] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=J}} J] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=K}} K] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=L}} L] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=M}} M] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=N}} N] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=O}} O] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=P}} P] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=R}} R] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=S}} S] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=T}} T] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=W}} W] || [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Category:Stub|from=Y}} Y]
|-
| Count || <!--A--> 282 || <!--B--> 362 || <!--C--> 509 || <!--D--> 297 || <!--E--> 219 || <!--F--> 236 || <!--G--> 236 || <!--H--> 242 || <!--I--> 171 || <!--J--> 163 || <!--K--> 205 || <!--L--> 313 || <!--M--> 444 || <!--N--> 282 || <!--O--> 177 || <!--P--> 404 || <!--R--> 253 || <!--S--> 287 || <!--T--> 433 || <!--W--> 182 || <!--Y--> 1
|}
*Unfortunately, these 5700 aren't the end of it. [[User:Pearle|Pearle]] has continued to find and update even more stubs, which continue to add to the totals shown above. Fortunately, these seem to be coming in tens and twenties, no longer in hundreds or thousands per day, so the end probably really is near. It's just not clear exactly how near. Given this, and the fact that updating the counts was a distraction, I've reverted the Category ToC back to the standard version. [[User:RussBlau|Russ Blau]] [[User_talk:RussBlau|(talk)]] 13:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
**That's not grounds to remove the ToC: this was never going to be the end of it because people are still adding the template to new articles (probably at a faster rate than the bot is), but the ToC still gives us an idea of what's to be done. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 15:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
:::''"the ToC still gives us an idea of what's to be done."'' Assuming of course, it's kept up to date. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
::::Not really, as the live list is available on the page further down. BTW The 5700 are not the precise count on May 16, but the number of pages the bot tried to add on the 18 when there were just 100 left. It's a reasonable estimate though. Today (May 28), there are just about 950 left .. -- User:Docu
== Katz's Deli... ==
Line 121 ⟶ 156:
...is not disappearing from the list, even though there's no stub tag there. Any idea why? --[[User:Jemiller226|Jemiller226]] 20:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
:It's probably got a bad page history (accidentally created twice or similar). Admins can normally fix that sort of thing, but this one has block-compression problems, so it can't be fixed at the moment, and will have to hang around for a while. Sooner or later it'll be worth having another look at to fix it. [[User:Grutness| Grutness]]|<sup>[[User_talk:Grutness|hello?]]</sup> [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 01:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Brion Vibber fixed it (see [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Spurious_article_in_a_category_and_search]]). -- User:Docu
== User pages with stub tags ==
Line 126 ⟶ 163:
Does anyone else agree that it is ok to edit user pages to remove the stub tag? as it interferes with our lovely stub list. I'm sure no one would mind, especially if we left an edit note explaining why. [[User:Bluemoose|Bluemoose]] 10:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
:What I would suggest doing is creating a new stub that looks exactly like the regular stub template but without including a category (called userpage-stub or something). Then politely suggest to each user on their Talk page that they change from the old stub template to the new one. Although this is a Wiki and you can edit almost any page, it is generally considered impolite to edit User pages except for typos unless they are someone like [[User:Jimbo Wales]] who says right on his user page to go ahead and edit it. [[User:BlankVerse|<
::Yes, asking them on their talk pages is a good idea. There are other "stub" pages such as [[Wikipedia:Yahoo! searching Wikipedia]] and [[Wikipedia:Google searching Wikipedia]], I personally think these could just be speedy deleted, as they have no useful content, and i doubt anyone knows they even exist. [[User:Bluemoose|Bluemoose]] 14:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Check the criteria for [[WP:SD|speedy deletion]]. I'm not sure they fit. You might have to submit them at [[WP:VFD]]. If only those pages could be a form, like the ones that show up when the developers disable the Wikipedia search engine. (Of course you ''could'' just put a Delete because tag on the article and see if an admin will delete it anyway, but I'm not really recommending you do that. ;-) [[User:BlankVerse|<span style="color:green;">''Blank''</span><span style="color:#F88017;">''Verse''</span>]]<span style="color:#2554C7;"> </span>[[User talk:BlankVerse|<span style="color:#F660AB;">∅</span>]] 09:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
:Asking them is a very good idea. Some of these stubs are there for valid reasons, such as creating dummy pages to use as templates (the other meaning) for real articles. Then again, if we can find the right subcategory for these dummy articles, it would make sense to change them over anyway! [[User:Grutness| Grutness]]|<sup>[[User_talk:Grutness|hello?]]</sup> [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 10:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
== rename this category ==
This category should be renamed to "Uncategorized stubs". --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 02:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
:It probably should, but it's still so heavily used that any change to the template is likely to cause serious server problems, and in any case due to the way templates work you'd need to do a null edit on every stub in the category to get it to move to the new category. That's one of the reasons why planned moves to [[:Category:Stubs]] have never been accepted. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
== Reduction of uncategorized stubs ==
I have been reducing the list of uncategorized stubs by changing the stub templates on the articles. Will other Wikipedians help me on this mission? --[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] 03:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:Don't worry - you're not the only one working on this! :) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 05:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:Indeed. You might want to look up [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting]]. --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 08:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
== Stub Sorting ==
How much progress has stub-sorting been making. I've only just started so don't really know.
== Stub Sorting ==
How much progress has stub-sorting been making. I've only just started so don't really know. --[[User:Bjwebb|bjwebb]] 15:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
:A lot of progress has been made. When the project began there was an estimated 25,000 unsorted stubs plus another 4000 substubs. These estimates may have been low, and new stubs come in daily. Currently all substubs have been sorted and the template deleted, while less than 1400 unsorted stubs remain. Next month will probably see the start of maintence mode for unsorted stubs and the start of the main assault on the biographical stubs. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 15:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
::Just out of intrest when did the project actually begin? --[[User:Bjwebb|bjwebb]] 19:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
:::15 Nov, 2004. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 20:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
:In all there are well over 25,000 stubs, since many were already crudely divided (probably closer to 40,000 if the truth be known). The above tally doesn't include items moved from coarsely graded subcategories to more finely graded ones. I know I'm biased on this one, but moving several thousand geo-stubs to separate country and region categories is another example of stub sorting progress - in all there are over 10,000 geo-stubs divided into about 60 different subcategories whereas before they were listed as UK-geo-stub, US-geo-stub or general geo-stub. The same is true with many other stub subcategories (music, history, science and soon - biography). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 00:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
<div style="text-align: center; background-color:#d0ffd0; color:#000000; margin: .5em; padding: 0 1em; border: #9F9FFF 1px solid;">
:'''Important:''' This category is getting ''very small''.<br />If appropriate, please give yourself a hearty round of applause for moving content into subtopical categories.</div> <!--Wipe 22:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)-->
:Heh :) --[[User:TheParanoidOne|TheParanoidOne]] 10:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
To quote Sir [[Edmund Hillary]], on his return to camp after the conquest of Everest: "Well George, we knocked the bastard off!" [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 01:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
:I go away for the weekend, and when i get back i find a virtually empty stub list!, '''well done!'''. [[User:Bluemoose|Bluemoose]] 13:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Brackets ==
I have put both [[Water Music %28Handel%29]] and [[The Three Musketeers %281993%29]] into an apropiate stub category, but they still appear in Category:Stub. Why? Is it something to do with the brackets? --[[User:Bjwebb|bjwebb]] 08:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:More likely a page hstory problem. I'll see if I can fix them. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 10:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
::Nope, that didn't work - no idea what the problem is. I suggest asking at the Village Pump. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 10:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Probably the "Katz's Deli" discussed further up on this page. -- User:Docu
| |||