Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Archive/2006

message: Can stub-types be in two categories?  If so, US military history stubs should listed under Military History stubs as well as US History stubs.--ragesoss 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, yes, but I note that there is a well-populated  that would take care of both categories in a single stub.  That stub is not listed among the Stub Types, however. --EncycloPetey 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US military history 

message: Could we organise the pages so that we result in 'learning subjects'.
Examples of Categories and Sub Cats:
* Mathematical
** Formulae
** Mathematicians
*** >0 AD
*** 0-249 AD
*** 250-499 AD
*** 500-749 AD
*** 750-999 AD
*** 1000-1199 AD
*** 1200-1399 AD
*** 1400-1599 AD
*** 1600-1699 AD
*** 1700-1799 AD
*** 1800-1849 AD
*** 1850-1899 AD
*** 1900-1924 AD
*** 1925-1949 AD
*** 1950-1974 AD
*** 1975-1999 AD
*** 2000-Present AD
** Terms
* Economics
** Terms
*** Theories
This I would have liked now, seeing as it is a bit difficult in finding such info - especially as I am studing economics subject in school and would like to edit/assign stubs in the process. Paddy 14:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be appropriate for the main categories, but it wouldn't make any sense to do so for stub categories. There may be only one or two stubs for some of the categories you've suggested above, which would make them useless to editors. I think you mak have this page confused with a compete list of all categories. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning related category 

message: Is there any better way than manually updating it? As it is now it is slow and some sections are 2 months out of date. (I have tried to work on those in particular). Is there an easier way than what is described on this page? Many thanks.
:Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, no. --TheParanoidOne 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't a bot be rigged up for that kind of thing? It's not really complicated. Chris M. 06:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you propose? --TheParanoidOne 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well realistically the counting process for the stubs isn't really complicated, but it's really time consuming and repetative.  The reason things aren't updated is because there aren't people to count them over and over.  I'm going to make a copy of the stub page and then see if I can make a bot to run through it and get a decent count of the number of articles.  The standard procedure is the number of articles unless it's 8 pages or more, then you list the pages, right? Chris M. 02:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard procedure (in theory) is what it says at top of the page: bins for <10, <25, <50, <100, <200 (<1 page), <300, ..(a bin for each 100).. , <800, and then number of pages after that. Mairi 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My attempt at creating something to read through the pages can to a halt when I found myself unable to automate my program to read the contents of a web browser.  The option in Visual Basic just doesn't seem to be there.  Very odd.  I'll keep looking into it though, because I'm sure a bot would be useful for something like this. Chris M. 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You could try pywikipediabot framework, as then you wouldn't have to write most the code for parsing categories and such. Assuming you know or feel like learning python :) Mairi 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: counting # of articles in each stub category

message: I've slightly reorganised the "Miscellaneous" section, giving the organisations their own subheading. I've also removed  from being listed under , since it didn't belong there. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight reorganisation (no pun intended)

message: should not really be listed under mathematics; these articles are about real-world knots that you tie in a rope, not the mathematical discipline of knot theory. Probably they should go under "miscellaneous", though I suppose an argument could be made for "technology".
I've made it so :Category:Knot stubs is no longer a subcat of :Category:Mathematics stubs (that's the more important change; without it, knot articles could show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity and related pages, which would be bad). --Trovatore 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: classification of "knot stubs" cat

message: There are almost 2000 (ten pages of up to 200) articles with the sect-stub template. It would be nice if people could look through the list and unstubbify some articles, especially if a person has knowledge of the subject. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sect-stubs aren't really stubs, and aren't dealt with by WP:WSS. They're actually a variety of  template. In a perfect world, they'd have their own wikiproject dealing with them (actually, in a perfect world, they and stubs would all have been exopanded into full articles :) Grutness...wha? 00:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sect-Stub Alert 

message: Could someone make an inventor-stub template? I've seen several uses for one. I'm really bad at making stub templates, too. Jfingers88 04:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to propose new stubs is at WP:WSS/P, but in this case, this one has been proposed before and turned down, I'm fairly sure. The point is that most inventors can already be covered by other stubs like engineer-stub, scientist-stub and/or chemist-stub, so there's not really any need for a separate template for inventors. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Next time, I'll be sure to put my suggestions of the proposal page. Thanks. Jfingers88 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor-stub 

message: I tested my code, (for half of the page) and it works. I suggest that I run these every saterday, and do away with manual edits.!!!!(about time!!!)User:Gnome (Bot) is who will be doing the 1 edit.Eagle (talk) (desk)
*User:Conscious, are you ok with letting me finish what I started.(as I said than manual updates become a thing of the past)Eagle (talk) (desk)
**Also, the program gets the list of categories right off of this page, ensureing that the infomation is up to date as possible.Eagle (talk) (desk) 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated update is possible 

message: The Categories under section 1.6 are not bolded, I am going to do so to allow my program mentioned above to properly match up the categories with the counts.Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding the Categories to be counted and adding <

message: Forget what is below
Only one of these is going to be kept by my bot, For now I am going to replace all of the others with Children.Eagle (talk) (desk)
:The reason for this is I must write code to tell my bot to keep these lines in the order they are in, with out attaching a number at the end. (The formatting must be consistant at the beginning and at the end of the lines. This is for a purely proggramtic point of view.Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the bot settles in, I may add code to allow lines to start with other things.Eagle (talk) (desk)
Forget what is above
I found that the < small > and <\small> tags indicate the start and end of these lines.Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chlid---Children---Other Children 

message: Uh...As the header says, the formatting of this page is done. 
:Article Counts will soon be automated as a result we need to change the top of the page, as manual counts should no longer be needed.(Thats a good thing)Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting is finally readable to [[User: Gnome (Bot} 

message: :We no longer need manual counts, and we need to reformat the top of the page to reflect that fact.Eagle (talk) (desk)
::Gnome is running now.Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A sample of what the bot does can be found at User:Eagle_101/Gnome/Sample
The bot has run into some bugs, most notable the redlink bug. As I am going to be gone from wikipedia for 1-2 weeks, I will be unable to fix it untill than.Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Article counts 

message: To alert admins to hold off deleting a category. If they don't the bot goes into a grinding halt, and all of the data is basically useless.I am working to fix this, but I have put in over 7 hours on this and I have another life:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason

message: Why have we "gained" this as an additional shortcut?  What does it it actually stand for, anyway?  Wouldn't WP:ST be a bit more logical?  Alai 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume WikiProject Stub Counting. I really don't know, All I Know is that it is the shortest option to type.:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 07:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ST will probably find you somewhere in the Star Trek Wikiproject. I only found out about WP:SC a couple of days ago when User:Eagle101 said that I'd changed something at WP:SC. I almost replied that I'd never been there, but decided to check the link before doing so. WP:SC is actually an ancient redirect to Wikipedia:Stub categories, a long defunct page, and it looks like we inherited it when that page was subsumed in WP:WSS/ST in the middle of 2005. I wouldn't mind losing it, but it seems to be on a lot of talk pages. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good theory on 'Trek, but actually it's currently a defunct redirect to the "statistics" special page.  If we can swipe that, or some other preferable 2LA, perhaps we could "deprecate" WP:SC, without immediately abolishing it.  If not, no big deal...  Alai 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SC]]? 

message: I noticed that for e.g. { { mathematician-stub } } it is written < 5 pages,
while there are >>500 pages in this category.
Then I noticed that it's the same for many other categories, especially with subcategories.
Does the bodface mean "times 1000" ? or does it mean something else ?
I didn't find information on that on this articles's page. — MFH:Talk 17:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand your figures. The category has 971 stubs (there's 200 on a full page, so it means 5x200). The boldface simply means that the category is so big that it is worth considering splitting it in smaller segments, and in this case, the next full page will become the fifth, hence the "<5 pages". The boldface should basically be seen as an indicator to watch the category for potential problems with size. Valentinian (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The numbering scheme used is explained at the top of the stub types page. --TheParanoidOne 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weird numbers (boldface = x 1000 ?) 

message: I am sorry as of this time I am going to program Gnome bot to aid in the clean-up backlog...more info on WP:CU and Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal. Right now the matter is absolutly urgent...I promise I will return and automate the stub counting as well, but automated stub counting is not as near as urgent as the Cleanup Backlog. Alba is the one who drafted me to aid him in fighting the backlog.
Agian if someone else does not do it by june...I will return...Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Urgent use for Gnome (Bot)

message: There should to be a stub for a musical theatre production that is not a film. Dracula Spectacula for example. 
Perhaps
 This article about a musical theatre production...
Ω 07:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can propose it at WP:WSS/P, perhaps with  as its parent – but read the proposing new stubs procedure. --Bruce1ee 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical 

message: While looking for , I noticed that  and  are currently listed under 2.13.2 Other technology. Shouldn't they go under People by occupation instead? (As a relative newbie, I'm not feeling WP:BOLD enough to make this change unilaterally.)
BTW, I'm using  on engineering-related stubs such as Calibrated orifice. If this is wrong, please let me know.
—Chris Chittleborough 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [US-]engineer-stub in wrong place 

message: There seems to be no stub type appropriate to classical music groups.  There are a fair number of stubs for orchestras or chamber music groups that want classifying.  SteinbDJ 16:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazingly, there were no instructions at the top of the list about new stub types - there are now. To propose a new stub type, go to WP:WSS/P and follow the instructions at the top of the page. Grutness...wha? 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Music Groups 

message: has existed for a long time and is in many articles yet it isn't in the list of stub types. Could someone add it since I don't know this WikiProjects rules? Jedi6-(need help?) 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there. Since Star Wars is primarily a film series, it's listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#theatre and film. Grutness...wha?]] 06:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Wars

message: At the top of the music stubs section it says that there are 7 pages in the general category. When I went to the page there was >180. Can someone explain this to me? If not I will change it.--Yarnalgo 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were seeing ~180 stubs on the first page. Each category page contains 200 items (comprising both articles and subcategories). Between The A-Z list and the "Subcategories" heading you'll see two links that look like this: "(previous 200) (next 200)". Click on "next 200" to see the next page. The actual number of pages has gone down to 5 since the last time it was looked at (in March) so I have updated the figure. --TheParanoidOne 05:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music stubs 

message: I just removed the word "stubs" from each item and added "stubs" to each section heading. This makes the page about 15k smaller and makes it easier to read and edit. --Jonathan Kovaciny 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it (before I found this note). We've already got enough people confusing stub categories with non-stub categories. Removing the word "stubs" from all the category listings will only confuse them still more. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the inclusion of the word stubs in all the section headers and the fact that there's a  on every line make it obvious enough? I know a lot of people don't take the time to pay attention to what they're looking at, but removing "stubs" from everything makes the page a lot more readable, in my opinion. --Jonathan Kovaciny 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: well, if people were getting it wrong even with all the categories listed as "xxx stubs", I don't think reducing the number of times the word is mentioned is going to make it any clearer. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a shame that the software places the full category name after the bar, if you just leave that empty. There seems to be no reason for it. --TheParanoidOne 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The part after the pipe is inserted by the mediawiki software. ie. If you were to enter , next time you edit that section it will show Some category. --TheParanoidOne 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I just noticed that I already said that. Oops. I fail at reading. --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page cleanup 

message: While on the subject of cleanup, I've noticed that changes to categories via sfd don't always get updated on the piping of this page - we end up with things like US geography stubs. It's worth running a check on places the piping's letting us down, and also remembering to fix both when any changes are made! Grutness...wha? 01:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame that the software places the full category name after the bar, if you just leave that empty. There seems to be no reason for it. --TheParanoidOne 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The part after the pipe is inserted by the mediawiki software. ie. If you were to enter , next time you edit that section it will show Some category. --TheParanoidOne 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I just noticed that I already said that. Oops. I fail at reading. --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat piping

message: Should articles like Fioricet be sorted as  or ? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pharma-stub. Treatment-stub is for things like aortic valvuloplasty and cold turkey. Actual drugs get pharma-stub. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pills? 

message: Would a book of short stories go with  or ?  I don't see a category for collections of short stories! thanks -- hibou 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a book, it would get book-stub. If it's for one individual story from that book it would get story-stub. FWIW, there's a proposal for a possible anthology-book-stub currently being debated at WP:WSS/P, so the point may soon be moot. Grutness...wha? 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Stories 

message: Category:United Arab Emirates stubs has no templates, just a geography-stub subcategory. You may want to note that, seeing as it wasn't mentioned under WP:SC's Stub categories without a stub template header. Picaroon9288|ta co 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be a :Category:United Arab Emirates stubs. he geo-stub category was created the other day and a redlink was deliberately left on it for such a time as a separate parent category was needed (which it isn't yet). Once one is, it will be created with template. Until then, there shouldn't be a category. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Arab Emirates stubs 

message: Should railway stations be listed here under Buildings and Structures/By building use or type or under Transport/Rail?  They're currently listed (incompletely) under both.  --CComMack (t•c) 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railway stations 

message: In order to avoid a long run-on sentence, here's what I did:
#Looked at the Proposal archive between ~May (Archive 26) and July, inclusive
#Anything that was created, I listed on WP:STUBS
#Anything that was wrong, created out of process, whatever, I took to WP:SFD
#Added  to any categories that were missing it
So, as far as I know, the stub types list is accurate as of July 31 (only about a month behind).  As long as we keep up with the archiving and those handy summaries, I will try to keep WP:STUBS updated accordingly. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up-to-date as of July 31 

message: I have done the above to all of the Proposals that are in the August archive, with the exception of a couple things that I'm not sure what to do with.
* /  - would that be listed under Actors, Models, or both?
* - would this go under France or under South America? (My tentative guess is SouthAm)
*, ,  - where do all these go?  I'd like to keep them together, perhaps under misc? lighthouse- would seem like it would go under structs by type, though
* - not sure what's happening here, there's a discussion going at /P concerning this as well
If anyone wants to tackle those, feel free to do so and make a note here.  Thanks! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up-to-date as of Aug 31

message: Everytime I try to go to the project page, my browser crashes, its a fresh update of Firefox and i have plenty of processor power.  Its just too damn long.--aceslead 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm using Opera on a rather new computer. Although it doesn't crash, it becomes quite sluggish and moreover the wikipedia server needs 16 seconds before it starts sending the page, while 1-2 seconds is normal for other pages. I would suggest putting each section into a subpage, with just plain-text keywords on this page to facilitate searching. Han-Kwang 16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Per the WP guideline "Be bold" I have reorganised the page a bit: section 2 is now transcluded from subpages and I made a plain-text index page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types index. As of now you won't notice much difference on the Stub types page, but whoever updates the "<200 links as of October 14" remarks will need to adapt their software a bit. I think that it would be even better to move the fully hyperlinked list to a new location and put the text-only list in its place. Whenever I add a stub category to an article I'm annoyed by the slow loading of this page. Han-Kwang 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are my HERO!--aceslead 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry for being a bit too bold, but I don't think it is necessary to start screaming like that. I did consider creating a sandbox version as a proposal, but since it doesn't change the appearance of the page and prevents me from having to do this again in case the proposal is accepted, this seemed a better solution to me. Han-Kwang 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for the screaming... but perhaps if you'd checked this page history you'd have noticed that similar changes have been soundly rejected in the past. It may seem like a better solution to you, but it is not regarded as such by most of the people who regularly use the page. And as you said, this page is regularly updated by bot - to change it without proposing such a change causes quite a bit of havoc. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The page is long, but this is better than having to watch an unknown number of pages. If we split the list into more pages we might soon end up with ten or so pages to update and keep free for vandalism (and to check for duplicate entries which would be a real pain.) In some cases it is better to keep all eggs in one basket and keep a good look on that basket. We should keep the current system. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The discussion is continued on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Han-Kwang 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks--aceslead 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types 

message: May I suggest that the disaster stub tag be reworded to refer to disasters generally, rather than "disaster management"?  There is no separate tag to use in the case of an article about a specific disaster, though a number of articles use the existing tag for this purpose.  This could also become a seperate stub type, whatever works better. Thanks! --Swpb 03:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual disasters, being historic events, get marked with whatever the appropriate history stub is (usually by location). Thus Aberfan, for example, would get a UK-hist-stub, and the Tangshan earthquake would get a China-hist-stub. Note that hurricanes do have a separate stub, so disasters connected with hurricanes (e.g., New Orleans vs Katrina)  can use hurricane-stub. Grutness...wha? 04:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about an airplane crash, particularly one in the ocean, where there is no particular country associated with the event? --Swpb 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  or one of its subtypes should cover that. BTW, the Disaster stub is worded in that way because it's been made in association with a WikiProject on disaster management. It might well be worth having separate stub types for different types of disaster, though... proposing some at WP:WSS/P might be a reasonable idea. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster stub 

message: Why are not all stub types listed for US states?  In particular, I noticed that the  is not listed.  Is this page intended to list all stub types, or is it just a summary of major ones? Thanks. --Swpb 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is supposed to list all the stub types that are official - that is, all the ones which have been approved for use and are used by WP:WSS. Ones which don't appear here haven't gone through the debating process prior to creation and should be listed at WP:WSS/D for a decision of whether they should be listed, fixed up, or sent to WP:SFD as potential candidates for deletion. Iowa-stub should be listed, though. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State location stubs

message: Barbershop music is a genre by itself. Groups that sing barbershop (quartets) should have their own stub. Hip hop groups also number in the hundreds, and they have their own stub. Why not barbershop? just because there are less of them, doesn't mean anything, especially since barbershop is a truly unique american form of singing. Please reinstate this stub. Dullfig 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this stub be reinstated? Dullfig 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should familiarize yourself with the goals of the stub-sorting project.  Having or not having a stub type is not a judgment on the importance of the topic, but only on the effectiveness of the type in getting the articles filled out so that they're no longer stubs.  Stub status is supposed to be temporary, and no one, as far as I know, is opposed to having a permanent category for barbershop quartets and barbershop choruses. --Trovatore 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I did not know there was an active discusion. Thanks, I will check it out. Dullfig 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, wait, that discussion. Never mind, carry on :-) Dullfig 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbershop quartet stubs

message: I'm not positive that this list is supposed to be all inclusive, but if it is there is no spot (at least that i see) for the protein-stub.  I would add it, but 1. I'm not sure i know how 2. I'm not sure it belongs here.  If it does belong here methinks that it should be a subset of biochem-stub, and enzyme-stub should be a subset of it, Thanks.D-rew 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is for any stub types that have been proposed and/or agreed to by the stub sorting wikiproject - "official" stub types, if you like. AFAIK protein-stub has never been mentioned, let alone proposed, at WP:WSS/P. As such, it's better to report it at the project's "discoveries" page so that it can be discussed to see whether or not it should be officially adopted. Grutness...wha? 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protein stub

message: I think the talk page takes a long time to load too, but I came here to comment that the project page takes longer to load (at least on my system) than it does to find the right stub and add it to an article. I should probably just copy a list of stubs into a text article on my desktop, eh? Xaxafrad 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long load time