Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 10

message: Relatedly, is there a standard image-size-maximum? I'm noticing 45 and 50 px wide icons in many stub-tags lately, which is way too large. Wikipedia:Stub#New stub templates isn't clear at all, and mainly talks about . Thanks. --Quiddity 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a number of discussions about this, but I think 30-35 px is good, depending on the height.  For example, if something is really short, it may need to be longer so that the image is clear. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A flag would normally be 30px, but a few other images suffer terribly if shrunk all the way to 30px, and in that case, no problem with 35. Valentinian T / C 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I use 40 as an absolute upper limit. 45-50 is too big, but - as V says - some things look too muddy with 30. A bigger problem is what size to make vertical "portrait format" icons. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I tend to "standardise" anything larger to 40x30px.  Some images won't be very clear at that size (especially if the aspect ratio is more "portrait-ish"), but rather than enlarging them, I'd prefer to see them re-cropped, or else a more suitable image found.  Too much variation in size will make multi-stubbed articles distinctly messy-looking, aside from the general intrusiveness of images of inherently oversized images.  Alai 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image size limit

message: Try taking a look at . It looks like an editor has created a metatemplate generating stub icons by laying two images on top of each other. Thoughts? Valentinian T / C 18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since my computer is in the shop, I'm having to use the public one at the local library.  In it's antiquated browswer, I'm only seeing one icon, an overlarge soccer ball.  Side by side icons have been occasionally seen on these sorts of dual axis stub templates, and some people have even been inventive enought to create custom icons for some of them, but given the nature of the browser compatabilities issues, I can't say that deliberately overlaying images is a good idea at all, especially if it leads to use of such a large icon. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metatemplate on the football stubs? 

message: Anyone know anything about this? Grutness...wha? 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a subst-me "wrapper" for the existing barnstar, right?  Alai 13:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. See the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject_awards/WikiProject where other templates have similar "wrappers" to make them easier to use. Valentinian T / C 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a ribbon to go along with the star? Midx1004 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award? 

message: It looks like some of our former category names continue to clutter Special:Wantedcategories. Anything we can do about it? The links seem to relate mostly to old discussion pages, so we can't simply update them. Any chance Alaibot could convert the links to < code > < nowiki > form? Valentinian T / C 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of categories is here Valentinian T / C 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose;  do you have a formula in mind for which link sources to apply such a conversion to?  We presumably don't want to do it with current discussions, or "approved, pending creation" links, and I'm not sure about links from non-WPSS pages.  Alai 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about converting them to "< code > < nowiki > unchanged old name < /nowiki > < / code>" format (removing the extra spaces of course). Wouldn't that do the trick? Valentinian T / C 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But which ones?  Alai 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, sorry, I thought you meant something more automated.  Yeah, for designated links that should be pretty straightforward.  If there's a smallish number you might indeed be faster just doing it in AWB than waiting for bot approval.  Alai 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about something automated, but the approval bit didn't cross my mind. The number is smallish, so I'll load up AWB instead. Valentinian T / C 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've abandoned that idea again. The darn thing includes pages linked to procedure Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/OldPages2 so it will probably be considered vandalism to tamper with the bot's pages, even though it hasn't used this one for most of a year. Darn. Valentinian T / C 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old category names on [[Special:Wantedcategories]] 

message: A new stub category has just been made for pterosaurs (it was on the list at WP:WSS/to do)... and there's something odd with it. The category talk page is somehow listed as a stub in the category, and I can't see why. All that's on the talk page is WikiProject Pterosaurs' banner template, but I can't see anything in that template's history which would cause this irregular stubbing. Any ideas? Grutness...wha? 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bug is in the  banner, probably due to the self-reference link to the pages the template is used on. I'm rather tempted to change the text to something resembling the text of . Valentinian T / C 11:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddness in {{cl|Pterosaur stubs}} 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/May, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/April, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/March are all nearly blank now (they consist of a one-sentence link), so would someone who's an admin please delete them? Thanks - Her Pegship  (tis herself) 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would someone delete these please? 

message: Has anybody heard any news about the toolserver? It seems like ages since StubSense worked with up to date data. Valentinian T / C 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hope is light green" (as we say in Danish). Valentinian T / C 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the toolserver data is now current(ish), and actively replicating.  However, stubsense still seems to be much less so:  possibly it's still using the old database, or else there might be internal caching involved in the stubsense tool itself.  Alai 01:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any news about the toolserver? 

message: I get an error using StubSense () :( Table 'toolserver.categorylinks' doesn't exist at stub_sense line 301.. CatScan is nice for different approach, but both would be better... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: StubSense seems to remain down. Is Interiot the only maintainer of this tool? Valentinian T / C 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: StubSense down?

message: I'm noticing a distinct lack of comments on many of the things brought to WP:WSS/P, WP:WSS/D and WP:SFD recently - has everyone given up, or are you hibernating (or out in the sun if you're a northerner)? Grutness...wha? 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of comments

message: Does anybody know what's happened to ? Valentinian T / C 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Sectstub}} formatting 

message: Would an admin please clean up the code on this template? We normally don't use the "This template will categorize articles that include it into Category:..." notices any more, so please clean up the code to something more standard. Valentinian T / C 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The transclusion on  isn't standard either (neither is its formatting in general). The unorthodox code makes a little more sense here but I'm not a big fan of that one either. Valentinian T / C 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, but you should probably place a comment to that effect on the template talk page, lest it look like a WPSS stitch-up.  And it's back to using "plainlinks", despite my having changed that earlier.  (Is it just me that objects to have an edit link easter-egged to look like a "normal" one?)  Alai 07:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. :-)  I really detest having that "external link" icon appear next to a very internal link that just happens to have to use a different syntax due to MediWiki software deficiences.  But maybe that's just me.  Heh. (Or rather me, and who ever came up with plainlinks to deal with the problem.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, it's neither "external" nor "normal".  Perhaps we should consider making it plain, but red, or something?  There was some discussion of the (lack of a) convention in relation to the section-edit links.  A standard 'edit link', distinct from both, would be a Good Thing, I reckon.  Alai 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code cleanup on {{tl|Stub}} 

message: The root-of-all-evil stub cat is well north of two thousand again.  But be of (somewhat) good cheer:  it was actually almost empty until recently, and these are almost all from the recent db dump.  So that seems to suggest the people at the coal face are actually keeping in touch remarkably well, so if they keep it up for the next couple of months, hopefully we'll be back down to zero(ish) by the time of the next one.  (And some of them will actually be uncategorised disambigs (as I'm currently getting grief over), so those'll be some easy ones to do...)  Alai 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cl|stubs}}:  bad news, good news