Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Archive

message: The organization of this system is extremely awkward and is inconsistent with that of other maintenance pages. The latest month should come first, then the latest listings should be organized in the same manner only under the month in which they were discovered. Adraeus 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no standard way for maintenance pages to be organised - each is organised as best suits the people who use it most and as best suits the information carried on the page. Have a look at WP:CP, WP:IRR, WP:DA, WP:VPM, WP:RFD, WP:AFD.... In any case, this is part of a WikiProject, rather than being a direct Wikipedia maintenance page, and this method has been found to work well by members of that WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: I recently discovered Simpsons-stub, which is a redirect to . I wonder how many other "stubs" there are in the Main namespace. This one, obviously, can be sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. If there are any "stubs" that aren't redirects, I'd probably turn them into redirects just to avoid WP:AFD. BlankVerse ∅ 15:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These should probably be speediable - articles shouldn't redirect to templates. I'll mention it on RFD's talk page. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've suggested on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that such cross-namespace redirects could be added to their criteria, and - after reading between the lines on the reply I got - surreptitiously deleted this redirect. As to how many others there are... who can say? Hopefully not many, if any (to quote New Zealand's top rapper). Grutness...wha? 05:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stubs" in the Main namespace 

message: If I'm stub sorting, say from :Category:Stubs, and I encounter a new stub, I assume I am to use something from the official stub types list, and not from here.  What if I encounter an article already tagged with one of these "discovered" templates?  (Like Sasdk)  Should I remove it, and replace it with one of the official ones?  Any feedback is welcome... -GTBacchus 06:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If one of the items from the stub types list is appropriate, then yes. However, it may be the case that the stub article may cover an area that is not catered for by any of the existing stub types. In which case, it could be left as is. In either case, you should note your discovery on the Discovery page, assuming it hasn't already been listed there. --TheParanoidOne 06:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ideally, there'd be an "emergent consensus" on the project page (truculent acceptance vs. outraged demands that something by SfD'd, soonest, are two running themes) that would guide such a decision. If not, add in your own thoughts on the topic. In the case you mention, it's actually the only actual article in the whole stub category, so there are distinct "viability issues", to put it mildly, Wikiproject or no. It also has no parent stub category, which is a little silly... I'm reluctantly forced to say it may not be a good idea simply to remove the existing tag, as it doesn't deal with the existence of the category itself (but do consider whether it's worth listing on WP:SFD yourself. If all else fails, you could consider "double-stubbing" with the "discovered" tag, and with the "project approved" one (useful in this case, as otherwise it's otherwise completely outside of the stub hierarchy). Alai 06:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both... It really ought to be deleted, or else filled up with stubs and added into the heirarchy properly... I'm going to give the WikiProject the benefit of the doubt for now, and just double-stub it.  If someone stumbles across this conversation later, and there's still hardly anything in :Category:.NET stubs - well, do what you will.... -GTBacchus 06:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To use or not to use... 

message: I think it's time to archive older stuff (at leat the months of August and september, and the deleted stuff), but for that we need to decide what gets kept and what goes.
===Proposal===
This proposal deals with every entry from August through October. and could be rapidly archive to de-clutter the page.
===Direct archive===
These have been dealt with without any doubt.
*Maoririder's contributions (mostly deleted)
* (accepted)
* (deleted)
* (accepted)
* (deleted)
* (deleted)
* (redirected)
* (accepted)
* (deleted)
* (deleted)
*:Category:United Nations stubs (accepted)
* (deleted)
* (renamed and accepted)
===Speedy keep, then archive===
these are implemented for all practical purposes (or probably should) but don't have WP:WSS/ST listings and appropriate tag in cat page (I included here those that have one, but not the other). Some of them also could use better categorizing.
*
**After sorting from , this reached 60. I'm adding it on WP:WSS/ST. Conscious 09:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: list again at sfd in a month. if this ones not deleted it will open all sorts of flood gates. do we want country-sport-bios for loads of countries? BL kiss the lizard 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: country-sport-bios would atleast be better than country-sport, tho ;) but i agree about listing it at sfd again, perhaps in less than a month --Mairi 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: um yeah :) i meant country-sport-stubs BL kiss the lizard 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to bing the axe! 

message: these are implemented for all practical purposes (or probably should) but don't have WP:WSS/ST listings and appropriate tag in cat page (I included here those that have one, but not the other). Some of them also could use better categorizing.
*
**After sorting from , this reached 60. I'm adding it on WP:WSS/ST. Conscious 09:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy keep, then archive

message: All sort of nonsense here, including still-categoryless templates
* - still only two articles, made obsolete by ,article is better off as an animal-stub
* too small for the time being
*, ,  unneeded and never implemented.
**I think that the latter two should be adopted. Conscious 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy delete through [[WP:SFD]], then archive

message: These have not been clearly discussed and consensus to move into one of the speedy cat is needed, many are too small for speedy keep, but of uncertain growth potential. At worse, go through SFD with each of them and include accepted ones in WSS/ST with proper cats and categorization and all.
*
**On proposals page. Conscious 08:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To be debated

message: I think this is probably a good idea, as long as whoever does the archiving remembers to update the WSS/ST list at the same time. As to the problem cases, CapeVerde-geo-stub is fine (but without the gap - I thought that had been fixed), and NZ-university-stub survived SFD (and is now up to about 35 stubs) - the other university stubs and UK-bank-stub are probably fine, too. The others, though...need work, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: list again at sfd in a month. if this ones not deleted it will open all sorts of flood gates. do we want country-sport-bios for loads of countries? BL kiss the lizard 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: country-sport-bios would atleast be better than country-sport, tho ;) but i agree about listing it at sfd again, perhaps in less than a month --Mairi 09:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: um yeah :) i meant country-sport-stubs BL kiss the lizard 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I've noticed there's a rather huge number of stub categories that have less than "threshold";  633 have less than 60 members, 414 less than 30, and 139 just one (and only five of these seem to be speediable as "empty").  Any number of these may actually be "in good standing", but it seems a lot to deal with, on any basis.  But if anyone wants to help with "pre-discovery" on these, I could upload and wikify a list of them from some selected cut-off (I have no idea, don't ask me).  Though I think we went through a similar exercise not that long ago, so if people are still "undersized-stubbed out" out from that...  Alai 02:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm up for that. The stub types page is becoming a little unwieldy and needs pruning. --TheParanoidOne 06:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wager many of these haven't been near /proposals, much less /types!  What's your poison as regards the cut-off?  Alai 07:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 40? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, 40 sounds reasonable. Perhaps with so many (if it's not too much work) it should be done in groups, starting with those with under 10, then moving to those with 10-20... that way any newer ones might creep up towards threshold. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a closer look at the subtypes under  and try to summarize my findings this weekend as I'm in that section on an almost daily basis.  Slambo (Speak) 11:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any number of apparently undersized stubs 

message: The proposals page has been in reverse order for a couple of weeks now, with no ill effects (other than never noticing when anything gets added to the "other business" section...). Are we going to complete the job by doing the same to the discovery page? And if so, when? Grutness...wha? 12:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverso?

message: I've uploaded an updated list of stub types with 40 articles or fewer.  This time I've excluded the redlinks (as of the last dump), the types with any subtypes -- and as an act of mercy, the schools and novels.  Hopefully, at least, on all counts.  Have your will of them!  Alai 04:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small stub types, opus 2 

message: I have recently found a number of stub types which are included in the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types or the page Category:Stub categories, but not both.  Can anyone tell me who I should contact about this, if anyone? Badbilltucker 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the sort of thing this page is for. If they're on the stub type list but not in  then simply add the  to the cat - it probably accidentally got missed off during the creation of the category. If a category is in  but not on the list at WP:WSS/ST, then it probably got created "out of process" and needs to be checked over - please add it to the bottom of WP:WSS/D so that we can see whether it's correctly formatted and worth keeping or not. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of the stub categories not found in WP:WSS/ST is here. Conscious 04:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably due to inexperience, I am not clear about the directions for "stub type but not categories": is what I add literally "c||Stubcategories"  within the double brackets-- is the "category" always exactly the same wording as the "type" ? DGG 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do when stubs are listed on only one list? 

message: This page is in desparate need of archiving (waaay too long to sort through), but I don't have the knowledge or confidence to do it myself.  Most of the discussions are so old that I wasn't around then, so I don't know what really took place.  I'll help if someone could give me guidelines or would be willing to assist in this. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been waiting for Argentina-sport-stub to finish its SFD, now that it has I'll be doing some archiving soon. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive been hoping someone would transclude it like WSS/P -itd be a big help. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transclusion per se is easy, the art is deciding when a discussion is "done", or at least "too old to care about".  Do we want to say, have a rolling two- or three-month window, as at /P?  Again, manual per-item archiving does not seem a popular activity.  Another alternative would be to set up auto-archival of sections older than <magic number> days.  Alai 06:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. I was actually considering bunging Werdnabot on the Talk page of the WP:SCOWNB, but wasn't sure if that might not be what it is for. But after seeing this I may give it a spin. --Mais oui! 12:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support in theory, but... when things are archived here, we check whether they've been added to the stub type list, deleted, or need to be sent to sfd - can Werdnabot deal with that too? Grutness...wha? 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  We don't even have a completely standard format for listings: any sort of automation would be a bit of a nightmare, in my opinion, at least until that's made more fixed, and it's not an area of 'botting that I for one am up on.  Someone familiar with the code used on some of the other process pages might be able to help out.  Caerwine made a similar point when I mentioned this on his talk page.  My thinking was that we could define a "too old to care about" threshold, but CW makes the point that this could result in "rediscovery", and prefers to keep things here until they're dealt with.  If people were willing to monitor what's been archived, and take that as cue to so deal with it, that would serve the same purpose, but it's not clear that that would happen any more reliably than archiving does at present.  Alai 03:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm trying my best to get through these right now, and I'm sending the more obvious ones that haven't been dealt off to SFD or adding them to the stub list or redirect as appropriate.  Once I get through with that (and the results of the resulting SFD's if those can be handled fairly quickly) I'll procede to some of the thornier ones.  I've managed to archive some 80KB (of what had been 223 KB) so far, and I'm only up to the middle of the Februaries so far, with all of the remaining Octobers and Novembers fully archived. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While slave laboursomeone kind enough to volunteer is taking care of archiving this faster than it's growing, that's the ideal method.  We could also implement per-month transclusion, though that would have little, indeed no benefit for archiving, if that has to wait until each item has been "actioned"; though it would mean that those keen not to load the whole page would have the option of skipping to the current month.  Alai 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a huge boon for those of us with old modems! Might I suggest too that if this page gets cut to a reasonable size, and if we do have monthly transcribing, it might be worth using the "new at top" method used on the proposal and deletion pages? Grutness...wha? 00:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no particular feelings either way on top-down, vs. bottom-up.  Per-month transclusion we can go over to at any point if there are no objections:  we could wait until the start of next month and start then, or else retro-transclude the current month in a day or three if there's general support.  Alai 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs archiving 

message: It would be much quicker improving the lists of orphan categories and stubs if, when the ommision (or error) is obvious (and not an  attempt to elude NPOV), the obvious category could be directly added  (or changed). They could be kept in a subcategory like: "Trivial Changes Made" so any doubters coud check.  DGG 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trivial changes

message: I just found two stub categories,  and , which have no articles in them yet. I don't think they were necessarily cleared by your group, but I can't be sure. That's why I posted the information here on the talk page. Badbilltucker 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haitian stubs 

message: Now seems the perfect time to suggest this again. This page is very long, and takes forever to load for that reason. <S>Transcription
Transclusion by month, a la WP:WSS/P, would solve a lot of these problems, I'm sure. Are there any violent objections? If there are no objections, I could start making subpages in the next few days. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections per se.  But if we do, we should also use the same archiving mechanism, so start off with January 2007 and let the main page shrink as discoveries get archived. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - so that would mean just transcribing the current month and leave the older stuff to dwindle... fair enough - that means less transcription work :) Grutness...wha? 06:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ack! Why didn't I see this before.  I know it's a bit late, but YES PLEASE.  Transcription makes sense and it'll help out with archiving in the future (right now, it's a yucky cut/paste thing).  Thank you Grutness! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just thought of a problem with this.  If we transcribe by month, then we will have to wait until the entire month is dealt with before we can archive it.  Does that mean we should stick with a cut/paste archive solution?  I'm a bit unsure as to how the process will work out.  ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How ios it dealt with for WSS/P? That's transcribed monthly but IIRC proposals are dealt with on an individual basis. If it works there, it will probably work here, too - and probably should be used for the sake of not needing to learn another load of instructions! Grutness...wha? 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it'd remain a yucky cut/paste thing, as Amalas so accurately puts it.  We'd have to go to per-entry or per-day transclusion in order to realistically change that.  Basically changing to per-month will make no real change to archiving, and no real change to loading the page, incurs a fairly small overhead in having to create and transclude the individual pages, but would allow loading of just a single month at a time.  I've no objections, at any rate.  Alai 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That last point (loading only one month) makes a huge difference to those of us on dial-up! :) Grutness...wha? 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I appreciate that.  (Even moreso after being temporarily marooned on dialup over Christmas.)  Just trying to sum up the implications as explicitly as possible.  Alai 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transc
ription
lusion

message: The useful  has been broken, apparently by a brand-new editor who should not have been mucking around with redirects. Instead of redirecting an article, he redirected the stub template, with the result being an ugly (and irrelevant) redirect being posted on every page that uses the stub. I can't revert it, because there is no history (which confuses me). What needs to be done to fix the stub template? Horologium t-c 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. The edit history is present, but he seems to have moved something in a way that left the template's edit history as part of the edit history of his new article (which looks a lot like a copyvio from his company's website. I just checked the first lines of text, but they matched. Valentinian T / C 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub broken by faulty redirect 

message: Per the many comments on this page, I have (a) reversed the order of the Discoveries page and (b) begun archiving the rest of the 2006 discussions. If someone else could take on the task of keeping up with archiving here, it would be lovely, as I'm already the Proposals archive maven. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housekeeping 

message: I've finally got round to making a suite of templates for notifying the creators of unproposed stub types that their creations have been either sent to SfD or reported on WSS/D. Have a look at ,  and  and tell me what you think. It';s likely someone with more technical skill could parameterise the sfd ones so that only one template is needed, but I'll leave that to someone more skilled than I am. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification templates 

message: I found these templates using asbox that don't appear at WP:SST (incl. /Culture+/Geography) prior to starting the conversion. Some may need to be listed, and some may need discussed. I haven't really looked through it. –xenotalk 02:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the the list is updated, we can run another sweep. It will be quite easy to identify unproposed stubs from here on out. –xenotalk 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially unapproved stub types using asbox 

message: I assume these need to be renamed, deleted, or merged. And probably listed. –xenotalk 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard names 

message: I just discovered this stub. In Wikipedia, the articles in this category are classified under educationist. There is no reason to classify the stubs differently. Besiders according to Webster's, pedagogue is someone who educates: these are classified in Wikipedia as educators. Educationists are, also according to Webster's the persons who specialize in the theory of education. The discussion page of the stub indicates that pedagogue stub is wrong. It is therefore suggested that the category be changed to educationist stub.Afil (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Best thing to do would be to list it under its own heading either at WP:WSS/D (this page's project page) or at the proposals page WP:WSS/P - though this isn't truly a proposal since it's already been created, the proposals page is on far more watchlists so will probably get more comments. I'm personally undecided oen way or the other whether a separate stub for public art is the best way to go - it's another axis to split art on other than medium and nationality, which are the two ways art would normally be split by stubs - and era/style would be a more obvious third way. In any case, with most WikiProjects a banner talk-page template is far more useful than a stub type, since you can use it to assess all your project's articles rather than justb stubs (see the section of WP:STUB on WikiProjects and assessment templates) Grutness...wha? 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Pedagogue stubs 

message: Hello:
It was pointed out to me that I skipped quite a few steps in creating the public art stub and it is now listed here as a discovery. I just wanted to make myself known and let you know that I'm certainly willing to do whatever steps I need to to make things right and be an official, vetted stub. We spent a lot of time over the past month fixing up WikiProject Public art and obviously that task was hastily completed without looking into the proper process. I apologize for skirting the system; it wasn't intentional! Do let me know what you'd like me to do, since it's already created and has articles associated with it. Thank you and apologies again! HstryQT (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Best thing to do would be to list it under its own heading either at WP:WSS/D (this page's project page) or at the proposals page WP:WSS/P - though this isn't truly a proposal since it's already been created, the proposals page is on far more watchlists so will probably get more comments. Since it's already been listed here at the discovery page it's probably best to leave it here (I've also commented under its heading on WP:WSS/D. Grutness...wha? 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|public-art-stub}}