Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 7

message: We have once again achieved full stub sorting. Currently, only those stubs that are candidate for deletion are under the category of stubs. We should keep up the tempo so that the number of articles in this category restrict to a bare minimun. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better if you stopped altogether. Stub categories are category clutter. There are far too many articles marked as stubs for the system to be useful and there probably always will be. 62.31.55.223 01:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just sorted about 600 stubs to clear the slate again. —LrdChaos 06:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm doing a wee bit of stub sorting tonight.  Won't get the whole backlog done though, as these pesky "sleep" and "job" things get in the way.  Panchitaville 04:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's the work of a bot (at least 95+% of it, anyway).  There was a secondary bot adding stub tags to articles and the occasional image page as well, but it didn't tag nearly as many because it was mainly fixing typos.  Now if only a bot could be made to categorize these things... — Indi [ talk ] 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again acheived 

message: The Japanese Mythology Project has created  as per the proposal page (there was no opposition). I hope this is the correct forum to announce this. Please have a look and make sure it is properly sorted in the stub tree. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 17:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Close enough. Normally you'd just note it with the proposal on WP:WSS/P. Both the template and category look well formed, too. Good work! :) Grutness...wha? 00:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't beat copy and paste. :) — BrianSmithson 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[:Template:Japan-myth-stub|Japan-myth-stub]]}} live 

message: I realize there are some people still enamoured of the quaint notion that there should only be one stub tag on each article, but I wonder if we should go further with our guidance on double-stubbing people.  Almost every biographical stub should really have both a nationality stub-tag, and a type relating to their main notability, generally an occupation.  Indeed, the whole biography hierarchy is organised on those two bases.  Single-stubbing of people leads to inconsistency, where some people are only classified along one axis, and others only along another; and makes subsequent resorting or resplitting harder (for example the scads of US-bios that are actors, military, politicians, businesspeople, but not tagged as such, or likewise for existing occupation stubs not yet split out by country).  Would anyone else be in favour of adding this as an open task/strategic objective here, and delicately hinting at WP:STUB that it's not such a bad idea?  Alai 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but where an occupation has been split by nationality, for example , only one stub tag is necessary. --Bruce1ee 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  I should have said to be more accurate, "stub everyone in such a way as to indicate a nationality, and an area of importance".  Alai 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-stub everyone 

message: Tried and failed to find a stub category for this article: Stop, drop and roll. Ideas, anyone? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to suggest  until I discovered you didn't mean the song!  is probably closest, but that isn't really that satisfactory. The stub types cover about 99.99% of possible articles. This might just qualify in the final 0.01%. It might have to stay as just  for now. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me find a stub cat 

message: The stub list is rather long, so I went creating a more compact list of all stubs, with only the specific relevant information needed to use them: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. →AzaToth 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have enough trouble keeping the current lists updated, so we really don't need any more administrative work (well, if we had say 50 more stub sorters ...) Valentinian (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compact list of stubs 

message: Is this an actual policy of wikipedia or a guideline? I see nothing that indicates that this is anything more than a project that editors may or may not choose to follow. The process of proposing a new stub cat seems a bit red tape-ish. Please point out the errors in my logic. Cheers.  youngamerican (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no error in your logic. But they are nice guys really, and it only takes a few days, even one day, to get a good stub approved, so you may as well humour them and follow their procedure. They really do do an excellent job and deserve a lot of thanks and respect. --Mais oui! 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have no problems with "humour"ing them, per se, I was just curious as to whether I would be doing so out of a choice to show deference to their hard work or because I actually had to. Cheers.  youngamerican (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's only a guideline. There are good reasons for it, though. Consider that, even with people proposing stub types (which most people do) there are already 1500 or so different types of stubs. Those types - in the vast majority - all have easy-to-work-out names that conform to a specific naming pattern, are all formed so that they work in the same way, and all lead to stub categories that parallel "main" categories. The vast majority of them also conform to a hierarchy so that we don't have vague or overlapping stub categories. All of them (should) have the sort of numbers of stubs which will leave editors with plenty of work to do but not with so many stubs as to baffle them. To keep all that running smoothly requires someone to double check everything and make sure that new stub types work as well as those already in place. WP:WSS aren't megalomaniacs wanting to pwn Wikipedia's stubs (well, most of them aren't :) - it's just a case of wanting to keep this monster of a system running as smoothly as possible. Also, since it's the stub sorters who do the majority of the stub sorting, it's good for them to know what categories they should be sorting them into! Grutness...wha? 01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are good reasons for many pages that are "only" guidelines;  the manual of style, the reliable sources guideline, etc.  So it rather depends on where one sets the bar for "may or may not".  Alai 13:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question? 

message: * If you are putting a  on a page, place it two paragraph's (¶, pilcrow) (or a Newline) under the last line of text, for spacing.
I would like to ask other users (stub sorting users) if they could view my proposal, change it a bit, and put it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub sorting methods Genereal Rules.
I have added this because stubs added one line after the text, are very close to the text, and it's easier to read if it is a bit spaced. This is simply for esthetic purposes, though this is an encyclopaedia it should also be pleasing to the eye, or it will be repulsive to readers.
Example, one paragraph:
===Discography===
*Album (2000)
*Album2 (2003)
*Album3 (2006)
 This biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
	 This article on a musician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
or, two paragraphs:
===Discography===
*Album (2000)
*Album2 (2003)
*Album3 (2006)
 This biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
	 This article on a musician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
You see the difference!
The example is related to music because I mostly do music related articles, but it's the same situation in any type of articles. For any questions or comments, please contact me! Death2 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really rather not see any instructions of this sort on the project page.  We get enough flak for perfectly reasonable requests as "instruction creep" as it is.  The point of stub-tags has very little to do with aesthetics, anyway:  one might argue that a bit of ugliness is an incentive to expand the article, to get rid of it.  Alai 21:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Spacing and other related layout should be handled with CSS, not by inserting redundant whitespace. It's unfortunate that with the default style on, the stub template appears too close to the previous paragraph (I don't know the reason to this). This is what an extra newline produces in the final XHTML page: "". That's very ugly too from another point of view. Wipe 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub sorting proposal

message: *Album (2000)
*Album2 (2003)
*Album3 (2006)
 This biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
	 This article on a musician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
You see the difference!
The example is related to music because I mostly do music related articles, but it's the same situation in any type of articles. For any questions or comments, please contact me! Death2 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really rather not see any instructions of this sort on the project page.  We get enough flak for perfectly reasonable requests as "instruction creep" as it is.  The point of stub-tags has very little to do with aesthetics, anyway:  one might argue that a bit of ugliness is an incentive to expand the article, to get rid of it.  Alai 21:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Spacing and other related layout should be handled with CSS, not by inserting redundant whitespace. It's unfortunate that with the default style on, the stub template appears too close to the previous paragraph (I don't know the reason to this). This is what an extra newline produces in the final XHTML page: "". That's very ugly too from another point of view. Wipe 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: Not sure if this is the right section, but as there are problems with stubs and stub-sorting, such as an article being categorized under several stubs (which can cause many different stub templates at the bottom of the page; example), requiring a lot of time and wasted resources, and different-sized images for stub templates (e.g. RC-stub image is much larger than India-stub image), I'm offering a suggestion:
I'm not sure if this is even possible programming-wise, but since all (or at least the great majority of) articles have categories, what if stubs were just signified in categories? The category pages maybe would then list the article with a bolded "s" similar to an "m" for minor edits or an "N" for new pages.
For example, Kinosaki District, Hyogo is under Category:Districts in Hyogo Prefecture, Category:Dissolved municipalities of Japan, and so on. On the category pages, Kinosaki District, Hyogo would have an s beside it to signify it's a stub. This way, instead of Hyogo location having its own stub page (Category:Hyogo geography stubs), categories themselves would show which articles are stubs. 
This has several advantages:
*Articles will no longer be categorized under more than one stub. The only stub template will be the standard "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" which would somehow create the s thing beside article stubs on category pages (again, not sure if this is possible). 
*People would spend less time (actually no time) tediously stub-sorting and more time actually contributing to articles. 
*There will only be one stub template image, thus eliminating image inconsistency:
 This Catholicism-related article is a stub.  You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
 This India-related article is a stub.  You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
Here, the dome of St. Peter's Basilica is almost three times as big as the flag of India. This is awkward, to say the least...
--3345345335534 03:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first it does sound like a nice idea, simply having a code next to items in the categories indicating stub articles. But the major problem with that is that a large proportion of stubs have no category - probably 90% of those that appear in . It's often the stub sorters who add the categories in the first place. So no time would really be saved anywhere, and many things which arrive here simply marked with stub would never appear in any category, because stub sorters wouldn't be around to categorise them - in other words, they'd be lost to editors. Another problem is that there are currently closing in on 250,000 stubs. If all of them were marked with one template it would not just cause slight grinding of the servers but would likely cripple them beyond all repair. As for image inconsistency, it's no big deal. Let's face it, if you're worried because it makes the article uglier, that's what a stub template is designed to do to some extent. we're trying to get people to improve the stubs! As regards spending less time stub sorting and more time working on articles, most of us stub sorters actually spend more time working on articles than stub sorting (I'm in the process of getting what was a one-paragraph stub on the Catlins up to FA nomination standard). I doubt many of us would work more on articles if there wasn't stub sorting. So basically: nice idea, but not really practical. Grutness...wha? 08:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't add the stub then come back later and categorise. It's all done in the same edit, and it's the categorising that takes the time, not the stubbing. Have a look at the stub-sorting guidelines and you'll see that stub sorters are supposed to add apppropriate categories at the same time that they sort the stub. A dedicated stub sorter will already know a large number of the stub templates - they are unlikely to know more than a small number of the main categories in wikipedia. So currently, when a stub appears in category stubs, your average stub sorter takes five seconds to add the appropriate atub template, then a couple of minutes trying to find the appropriate main category. The whole process takes maybe 150 seconds. Just adding the template would reduce that time by 10 seconds - assuming there were people doing it, which if there was no stub-sorting wikiproject, there wouldn't be (uness a separate parallel wikiproject was set up and caught on). So your proposal would save about 6% of stub-sorting time if the stub-sorting project still continued, or would leave hundreds of uncategorised and unstubbed articles if it didn't. And it would cause enormous server drain, due to the simply phenomenal number of stubs that exist that would all need to be marked with one template, (i.e., . Wikipedia's servers were severely affected a year and a half ago when there were 10,000 articles marked with . I doubt they would operate at all with 250,000 articles marked that way. So although it sounds a nice idea, it's not worth it. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternative to stubs 

message: I'm trying to get more involved in sorting, so I am attempting to learn to create approved templates - South Asian history in this case () but it doesn't seem to be working like it should according to the creation guide. Request backup, please. Aelfthrytha 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's not working about it? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten to the part of creating the category Category:South Asian history stubs and I can't get it to show up under Category:Asian history stubs as its own subcategory. Although, somehow, I managed to get it to show up as a subcategory of...itself?Aelfthrytha 01:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it.  It was in the  template syntax.  In the "category=C" part, you aren't supposed to fill in the name of the stub category itself, but the name of some non-stub category that you want to add this stub category to.  In this case, there is no :Category:South Asian history or :Category:History of South Asia, so I just added it to :Category:History of Asia.  Does that fix it? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, except it'd be nice if it showed up in Asia-hist-stub as an individual category, too. That was the biggest thing I was trying to figure out. Thanks! Aelfthrytha 01:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  You mean you want :Category:History of Asia to show up on the page :Template:SAsia-hist-stub?  You can just add the category to the template page, but I'd put <noinclude> tags around it to keep that category from getting automatically appended to every page with the stub tag on it, which wouldn't be ideal. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: Question. If a stub could fit in more than one section, is it better to give it two stub tags, or choose one so that the page looks nicer? On the one hand, having two tags would help it get unstubbed faster, but on the downside it would ruin the page. --Xhin 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two, and even three stub tags are quite the norm these days.  If it's a Bulgarian writer, and we don't have , then use  and  and put the article into :Category:Bulgarian writers -GTBacchus(talk) 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the standard way is to give two stubs unless there is a "complex" form available. As you said, having two tags would help it get unstubbed faster, since more specialist editors will see it. As to "ruining the page", stubs are already usually ugly articles, a bit of short term further disfigurement to help them to grow faster isn't too big a problem. Grutness...wha? 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Stub Tags 

message: Is there general consensus about top-sorting of stub (sub-)categories?  If so, is there further agreement about whether we're using " " or "*" -- or indeed, anything else -- as the sort key (prefix)?  I'll put in a weak vote for "*", and a strong vote for consistency either way.  As the same applies to categories in general, I've also mooted this here.  Alai 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends - a blank space is often as useful or more useful - what I tend to do is use |*xxx for one type of split and | xxx for another when things are being split on two dimensions (have a look at :Category:United_States_geography_stubs to see what I mean). Grutness...wha? 02:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as the name itself is included, I don't think it matters either way. I've seen subcategories being sorted with just a '*' and while they all certainly appear under the '*' section, they appear with no other ordering (other than the order in which they appear in the database, I guess). --TheParanoidOne 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I believe there is a consensus on top-sorting. I personally prefer using space for this, but some categories are top-sorted with an asterisk. And yes, as Grutness says, for some categories it's very useful to use both methods (for exapmle, films by genre and by nation). Surely, "| Stuff" or "|*Stuff" should be used instead of "| " and "|*". Conscious 05:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-sorting of stub categories 

message: Another entry in the contest to work out what WP:SC is an abbreviation for?  Alai 15:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarous... and given the usage of the term cabal, possibly speediable A6. But I'm quite willing to let FoN have his little joke :) Grutness...wha? 23:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Stubs cabal|WP:SC]]? 

message: I have noticed that :Category:Articles with sections needing expansion has become very large. Could we put section stubs into different categories depending on the article they are in, like article stubs? SCHZMO ✍ 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest editing the template to change the category to Category: articles with sections needing expansion.  This should make no difference whatsoever to the existing articles, but will allow you to use e.g.  to categorise as "Biology articles with sections needing expansion". Joe D (t) 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and done this, but I'd be cautious about using the new system on too many articles - somebody may have issues or spot flaws.  Additionally, if we do adopt this system it will require some coordination to make sure we don't end up with duplicate categories, or go to the other extreme and have a proliferation of categories with hardly any articles in.  Joe D (t) 21:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of section stubs 

message: We have a template  and a category . Unfortunately, some (to use a local colloquialism) nong changed the name of th caategory on the template, so now there are 92 stubs swimming in a limbo called . I've reverted the template, but should we (a) null-edit the articles, or (b) rename the category? Grutness...wha? 12:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is ok now. For whatever reason. Valentinian (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A problem across the Tasman

message: I have a question and I thought this might be the best place to ask. Is it acceptable to add a link to a WikiProject in a stub template? (eg. ) Joelito 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it, so far as I know there's no established consensus not to do it.  Though really, it makes more sense to me to put it on the stub category page, where there's the space for it.  OTOH, that's the least of this template's problems:  the use of "qif" to put these articles into one of two different articles is horrible, and really should be shot on sight.  (I've reverted the coding, and I'm putting the "semi-stub" category up for deletion.)  Alai 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some discussion here about a month ago that failed to get anywhere.  Suffice it to say that some people don't like them and/or will remove them, for various reasons; but there seems to be no formal policy regarding them. Kirill Lokshin 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to propose some official policy regarding this matter. Joelito 21:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt you'd get one that worked. We can't even get a n official plicy on template creation, let alone what's actually in them. In any case, the two camps are very nearly equally divided - the wikiprojects want the links, many other editors don't. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubs templates and WikiProjects

message: Is this an offical cat or one that just happened to have been created?  I think this is already covered by the offical :Category:Hotel company stubs.  Vegaswikian 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ISTR the idea of an actual hotel-stub was rejected when hotel-company-stub was made, since hotels ar already well enough covered by struct-stub. This one prbably needs sfd'ing. Grutness...wha? 08:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Hotel stubs]] 

message: Here's a new toolserver tool, StubSense.  Give it some random category, and it will list the most frequently used stubs for articles under that category.  --Interiot 02:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Valentinian (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's really great is that if this tool is used on a stub category e.g.  it's possible to see how many articles are double stubbed with e.g. . This'll make it a lot easier looking for possible child categories. Valentinian (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new tool: StubSense 

message: I was doing a bit of a tidy up on a random vlogger, BowieChick and was looking for some stub to throw on it.  I found Template:Vlog-stub and the Category as shown above.  However, vlog-stub has like 5 things in, and is probably too narrow a stub type.  Whereas there doesn't seem to be a generic stub for bloggers is there?  I could look further, but I really don't care much for blogs or blogging anyway, but would like to point this out to those stub fetishists who keep the WP running. - Hahnchen 14:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This query was moved over from Wikipedia talk:Stub - Hahnchen 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moving it again, to its proper place at WP:WSS/D. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Blogging stubs]] 

message: Very many stubs lack pictures. Since the requested image procedure is underused (and, indeed, seems to be barely functioning) I have been working on a subcategorisation of :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by location, especially relevant for buildings, structures and places. Hopefully people will add their local area subcategory to their watchlist and keep an eye on it from time to time to see if they can help out. At the moment the system is in quite a basic form - the USA is subcategorised by state, everywhere else by country except Africa (likely to be broken down soon) and Antarctica. The trick to sorting an article in this way is to use  or  in the article's talk page, for instance:  adds it to :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Australia and  adds it to :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Canada and :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States. I am basically posting here for two reasons: (1) this sort of activity seems to be the thing that very many stub-sorters might enjoy, and (2) if stub-sorters did a little of this while stub-sorting (you're all likely to come across many articles fitting this description) that would be great too! If there is enough support it may even be worth setting up a dedicated WikiProject. Are there any stub-sorters who are interested in helping out with this task? Or others who wouldn't do it specifically, but may do a little whilst they are stub-sorting? TheGrappler 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request about picture requests 

message: Per the United Nations definition of Middle Africa, could  be made a subcategory of :Category:Central Africa geography stubs in addition to :Category:West Africa geography stubs? — BrianSmithson 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you'll see from the wording in , we don't use the UN designations (although perhaps we should...?). I must admit bias, though - I'm not personally in favour of them because I feel Cameroon is culturally, politically and socially far more closely aligned with Nigeria and the rest of west Africa than it is with central Africa (my dad used to work in various parts of west Africa, so I have a little knowledge of the region). In any case, the way things are going it's a fairly moot point - give it a few months and most countries in Africa will rpobably have their own geo-stubs and the regional subcats will be unnecessary. There are a lot of African countries within a dozen or so stubs of reaching threshold. Grutness...wha? 02:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is very true for anglophone Cameroon but not for the formerly French-controlled part. South-central and southeastern Cameroon is much closer to CAR, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, etc. than it is to Nigeria. As for the stub, there already is a Cameroon-geo-stub; it just doesn't sort into Central African geography stubs. It should, in my opinion, be sorted under both West and Central African geo-stub categories, thus satisfying both the British POV (it's West African) and the French one (it's Central African). — BrianSmithson 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - sounds reasonable for places which have separate categories. ISTR that the Georgia and Turkey categories are in both the European and Asia ones in much the same way. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameroon-geo-stub 

message: I've compiled a couple of lists "un-double-stubbed" articles from two of the oversized people stub-types: the UK- and US-bio-stubs.  These are lists of articles that have no occupation or notability stub type, and no permanent category either (other than things like date of birth, death, the dreaded "living people", and various meta-categories).  If anyone is stuck for something to do (as if!), they might take a batch of ten of those, double-stub (or perm-cat) them, and strike that block from one or other list.  If this is a roaring success, I can upload similar lists for other categories, and of course if anyone has any input on the format, or the basis for generating them, please fire away.  Alai 04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: where is this list? Grutness...wha? 07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're linked above.  (User:Alai/UK-under, User:Alai/US-under)  Alai 07:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (slaps head) I thought they linked to the templates :) Grutness...wha? 05:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "under-stubbed" people 

message: Alai recently encouraged me to try AWB, and it seems like a pretty useful tool. Pardon me for asking a stupid question, but is there any easy way to use the find-and-replace feature to change an article from using one template to using two - e.g. from  to using both  and  ? My computer and I don't really agree on this one. Btw, don't bother fixing this example, btw, I'll do them by hand. Valentinian (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it :) It appears my computer and I have resumed diplomatic ties. The only thing that's slightly annoying is that simply using find-and-replace doesn't place the two templates on different lines so I do that by hand. If anybody knows of a more clever way, I'll be all ears. Valentinian (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to do, but "\r\n" is what your computer will call a newline, I think that will help. Martin 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to replace one line of text with two (short) lines separated by a newline. Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a try. Valentinian (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked like a charm. Thanks again. Valentinian (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-stubbing using AWB 

message: When im putting a stub category in another category, what letter should it be in the alphabetical categorization?  thanks, --Urthogie 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're putting it into a non-stub category, you'd normally use µ (although some people prefer to pipe it as "|stubs". If you're putting it into a parent stub category, you can use either a blank space followed by the name or an asterisk followed by the name - which you use will depend largely on what other stub categories are in there and how they're done (sometimes the two different types are used when two different forms of splitting are used, such as "by location' and "by type'). The question, of course, remains... what stub category are you categorising, and where to? Grutness...wha? 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hip hop stubs to hip hop.--Urthogie 10:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  category heading 

message: Could anyone help me find a stub for rowing and/or boat races?  I'm having problems finding where to look, before I propose one. thanks Mike 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is one. ISTR that there were proposals for both Yachting and Canoeing/Kayaking not that long ago, but I can't seem to find them anywhere at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're maybe thinking of , which you nominated for deletion, and I deleted, unfeeling brutes that we are.  Perhaps we should smoosh 'em all together as , until such time as they're seen to be viable in finer grain categories (duplicate/redirected templates from more obvious names also a possibility).  Kudos on the clearing-out of the sports-stubs, Mike.  Alai 05:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need help finding a stub

message: I was trying to mentally compose some notes to add to the naming guidelines on current schemes, customs and practices, etc, etc, and it occurred to me:  what to say about sportbio-stub, and children?  Do we want to talk round that, and further systematise it as an exception, or should we rename the whole hierarchy in line with the more general -bio-stub scheme?  I thought it better to flag this up here first, since you can be sure that nominating it as a SFR will produce the usual amount of reflexive "STRONG NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER, this is the way we've Always Done Things" votes.  Alai 20:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of being contrary, I think the sportsbio-stub system is the better of the two. The general rule is occupation-stub, followed by nation-occupation-stub. Where there is no one-word name for an occupation, the usual thing to do would be to create a concatenation from some descriptive term and "bio". The problem is that sports stubs do this by keeing the hyphen for the country split, some other occupations add in an extra hyphen. If you wanted total consistency you'd have to either drop the hyphen from things like academic-bio-stub or add "-bio" to things like explorer-stub. If we were going to do either, I'd favour dropping the hyphen. BTW, if you're looking for a bio-stub with hyphen problems that are definitely against our NGs, have a look at Hong-Kong-bio-stub! Grutness...wha? 23:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the current name isn't sportsbio, it's sportbio. :)  I disagree with your analysis of what consistency demands (as does current practice for everything else):  elsewhere we either have "occupation-stub", or "topic-bio-stub", so far as I know, the sports are the only place we have "topicbio-stub" (correct me if I'm wrong -- oops, I can correct myself, mathbio is also cited on the BGs, but it's only a redirect).  The first and second seem perfectly reasonable alternatives, but the combination of the second and third on an entirely ad hoc basis is needlessly confusing.  Yes, you could systematically go for the third, than the second, but that would involve changing even more types.  Alai 02:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go for sport-bio-stub as it matches up with topic-bio-stub that you mentioned. --TheParanoidOne 09:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sportbio: a fly in the naming guidelines ointment 

message: Hey all, I just stumbled upon this: Kreis_Jarotschin and discovered there's a boatload of these things here: . Some of these would be germany geo stubs, some would be poland geo stubs, and all of them are historical. I am soliciting suggestions on how to sort these. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are pretty problematic articles. It seems like somebody is creating "Kreis ..." for a lot of areas in Poland, without checking of the information is actually present elsewhere, (see the talk page of Posen District), so . Perhaps also: . If this is carried over the Danish border it'll get rather problematic, since e.g. Kreis Hadersleben (German) is exactly the same as Haderslev Amt (Danish), only the language is different. Valentinian (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd treat them exactly the same as other historical regions - combination of X-hist-stub and currentlocation-geo-stub. That's how things like Roman Provinces are deal with. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sorted them this way. Actually quite easy they all relate to areas in modern Poland. Valentinian (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prussia geo stubs

message: I'm curious about something. Do stub categories really attract experts to expand articles? Does anyone really look at the stub category pages for articles to work on? Or is it more just a tag to alert readers that the subject may not be complete? -Freekee 04:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: ...is busted. It was pointing to , which flooded that cat, and now it's pointing to the non-existent . Would a maven plz fix it? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Mascot-stub}}...

message: I'm concerned with the use of male icons in bio-stub messages, which are both androcentric and reinforce stereotypes. For instance, it seems to say that the person depicted in the image is what a "typical" Korean or "typical" American politician looks like, and reinforces the idea that women are a less perfect representation of a group than a man (in the same way that "man" used to be used to represent everyone). My suggestion is to prohibit the use of images of people in bio-stub templates. Sarge Baldy 18:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a proposal for a stub type;  WSS talk page, please.  Alai 19:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I thought that "reorganization of existing stub types" might including these sorts of broad changes. Sarge Baldy 19:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather than removing all the icons, perhaps more thought should be given to addressing the balance by simply replacing some of the male images with female ones. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I've always found the majority of sex bias issues rather silly. The icon isn't meant to represent anything but one of the more well-known examples of a group, to make a stub template look pretty. For example, Abraham Lincoln, who if I recall correctly is the US politician icon, is among the first people many think of when considering US politicians. I think you're making an awfully big deal out of an awfully small icon. Crystallina 03:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: me too - but although neither of us think it's a big deal, some people do, so it's still worth thinking about. And let's face it, if just adding an icon of Marie Curie to chemist-stub or Marian Jones to athlete-stub is going to keep more people happy, I say it's not too much to ask. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I just thought an overall policy might be useful when you have stub icons such as this one: :Template:Korea-bio-stub, generalizing an entire people as male. I mean, even without the overwhelming male bias on Wikipedia, can you really picture someone thinking to choose the depiction of a woman to represent the people of any country? Using a more "affirmative action" sort of policy would be much better than things are now, although it seems a bit more difficult to implement, and I don't think there's all that much of a value in the picture icons anyway; they often just look tacky. Sarge Baldy 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I can think of a region that chooses a woman as a symbol of the contry.  The value of the icons is that their meaning is more quickly recognized when an article is just scanned and not read in depth.  Without icons, the stub notices tend to blend in with the article text.  Slambo (Speak) 19:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty common, actually:  the whole abstract-nouns-are-female thing, essentially.  It doesn't mean there's a presupposition that the (stereo)typical French person is female:  she's a symbol of the nation, not of the citizen.  Using Indira Gandhi or (ahem) Maggie Thatcher would be more in line with G's suggestion.  Should we be using them at all:  I've lost track, what's the current word from the devs and site people on the server load issue, for one thing?  Alai 01:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex bias in bio-stubs

message: I have a proposal to use per-month trancluded pages for WP:WSS/P, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/June 2006. Hopefully this will simplify archiving and reduce the size of the page you load when editing.
Another proposal is to change logging scheme for WP:SFD. Currently, closed discussions are cut-and-pasted to the logs. What about transcluded per-week logs? I think that per-day logs (similar to WP:CFD) would be clearly too short (sometimes there are 0-1 nominations per day). Per-month logs, on the other hand, are going to be too long (about the combined size of these two). We can also create templates similar to  and  to mark closed discussions. Conscious 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first, on /P, seems a clear win;  it doesn't materially affect the appearance of, or procedures on, the page, and should make things easier all 'round.  The second I'm not quite as sure about; it'd involve significant changes to how the page operates;  in particular, actually closing discussions inside of a week, admittedly no bad idea in itself.  Perhaps we should start off with the closed-discussion templates as a first step.  Alai 15:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely support it on /P. Not sure it's really necessary on SFD - it's relatively short - but  and  would be worthwhile, I'd think. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not strictly so;  the discussion can be closed, and still be awaiting orphaning, or deletion, which currently involves c'n'p within the page.  If we're going to go with transclusion, I'd also like to see the closure tags already in place and seen to be working smoothly, rather than changing several experimental variables at once, as it were.  Alai 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created the templates. Artists, feel free to change the colour. Conscious 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good - but is there any way of making the text a little darker, or is it a standard "deletion template grey"? It's a bit difficult to read against that background. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is black, so it would make sense to change the background colour. Conscious 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once its in the box it appears as mid-grey on IE. Grutness...wha? 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, first, do we agree that it's a good idea to have transcluded logs at all? Re your question, I'd favour weekly logs. In addition, they could use names like /Log/2006/Week 23, generated with . Conscious 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreement in principle's hard to factor out from agreement on the practicalities, since the whole point is what'd be the better in practice.  In particular, weekly logs would mean that some items would necessarily go unlogged for that long, and half a week on the average (as opposed to the current "however long it takes", admittedly often longer).  It'd also mean that any unclosed items for the whole week would hold up all those, making that both more likely, and making it affect more items when it occurs.  So my current feeling is, "not if it means doing them on a weekly basis".  Alai 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just don't understand how 3-day logs would be implemented :) Conscious 06:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me how much work said generation of names would save, but hypothetically, why not /Log//Period  or something along those lines?  Alai 11:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not really clear to me that it would be that helpful on WP:SFD, which isn't the largest of pages. I'd be far more pleased to see it used at WP:WSS/D. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that logging on any given schedule is much of an issue at /D (which is the real point of transclusion, not size).  Alai 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Size not an issue? You don't have a dial-up modem, by the sound of it! I start loading the page, then make a cup of coffee, come back and it's still loading. Size is a big issue as far as I'm concerned. On WP:WSS/D, where you really only need to see the latest items at the end of the page, individual month transclusions would be extremely useful. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That bears no resemblance to what I actually said.  What /D needs is to be archived slightly more often than at ten-monthly intervals;  that's hardly an argument for transclusion, especially if people continue not to archive.  SFD, however, actually is logged on a semi-regular basis, but doing so by copying and pasting on an item-by-item basis is distinctly tiresome, and transclusion on a sensible basis could help with that.  Alai 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no doubt we have a problem with /D. It needs to be archived at the very least, many of the entries are resolved. But what about abandoning it at all in favour of a stubberg-type list? Alai and I maintain such a list, it is generated from each database dump and contains all stub categories not listed at /ST. Discussions at /D aren't generally very lively, and aren't binding. Now imagine we transfer this load to SFD (I mean, people take some categories from stubberg to SFD from time to time). What do you think? Conscious 13:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd broadly agree with your diagnosis, not quite sure about the prescription.  While I think the "unlisted list" is very handy, trouble is it's sufficiently large (approximately 450 entries) that it itself presents "management issues".  Separate lists of each batch of new unlisteds from each dump might be more digestable, and would be handy both for spotting the "incoming", and as a means of tracking the undersized-but-might-grow contingent, several iterations along.  We probably would still require some sort of discussion page, but if we move away from the not-very-successful model of a "tracking system" at /D, we'd probably be ahead on the deal.  Alai 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion on [[WP:WSS/P]] and [[WP:SFD]] 

message: What do we think of the above?  The coding looks dodgy to me, given the unclosed div tag, and I'm not too sure about the visual appearance, but the general idea seems to be on the lines of something we've been discussing for  a while.  The main stumbling block seems to be that unless we start messing around with the coding of the stub types themselves, or duplicating same, there's still the same amount of spamming with redundant information (this is a stub;  please expand;  yadda).  If anyone has any bright ideas on how to improve...  Alai 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|stubbox}} 

message: I hestitate to do this, since we've plenty to do as things stand, but...  Preliminary poking around in the db dump indicates over 10,000 very short articles not tagged as stubs.  I'm going to try to produce a cleaned-up list, possibly after the next en. db dump, but before I do so I thought I'd better check a) are people ready for the shock, and b) exactly what criteria should be used?  Bluemoose was previously using a size threshold of 350 bytes;  I'll use the same, unless someone has strong preference otherwise.  He was also excluding any page with a template inclusion;  I'm more likely to exclude on the basis of category membership.  In particular, anything that looks like a disambiguation page, copyright violation tagee, deletion or wiktionary candidate.  More marginal would be categories indicating a lack of sources, expansion request, merger, cleanup, incomplete lists, wikification, context, verification, and importance.  I'll include or exclude these or the basis of whatever feedback I get here.  Alai 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd exclude dabs, redirects, listdevs, and deletion candidates (CV or AFD) but include the rest. it'll be a long list and there are bound to be non-stubs on there, but it's more likely to get all the ones that are stubs. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untagged stubs 

message: All hands to the pumps!  is back to almost 400 articles... Grutness...wha? 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{cl|Stubs}} rising fast

message: Seems that User:220.253.3.186 has discovered a new way to vandalise using stub templates. Have a look at this. To paraphrase the great Alexei Sayle, "Stub templates are very important to this story - see how many you can spot!" Grutness...wha? 08:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse

message: The following discussion at the pump about a mysterious glitch with stub icons has produced the answer to a question I've wondered about for a while. It'll be worth keeping an eye out for any other icons that have this problem!:
----
Putting the politics and economics stubs together indents the second one. Is this attributable to the size of one of the graphics?
This politics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
	 This economics or finance-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
 
RyanEberhart 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had that problem with some stub icons but not with others. You might want to ask this question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting - because it's worth finding out which templates cause that problem and fixing them. I think it is a size thing, but I'm not technoboffin enough to know for sure. (BTW, I "substed" those templates to remove the categories). Grutness...wha? 05:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the "left" in the image link for the first template (removed below).  This causes the image to "float" left, allowing subsequent text (and images) to flow around it. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent. Thanks for that - I'll try to remember that if I see it happening again! Grutness...wha? 00:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon discussion at VP

message: The template  is quite long, well over one line on my small screen. Ideas on shortening it are appreciated. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alai. Looks good. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec)And on mine too, at least at the default browser width.  I've had a go.  Alai 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorten me

message: Looks persistently fried. Anybody know what's up? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubsense down?

message: There is an active discussion at Template talk:Stub about changing the way stub templates are worded (originally the suggestion was to change all references to the word "stub", but that seems to - thankfully - have died down. The gist of it is that templates saying "This article is a stub" are not instantly understood by casual editors, who would be far more likely to understand something like "This article is short and undeveloped". Input from more of the old hands would be welcome! :) Grutness...wha? 08:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming "stubs" to "Ready references" 

message: Since I know how heavy a use this WPmakes of them, I thought I shouid point this out:  (For those who don't know, Brion is the Wikimedia Chief Technical guy...) - SoM 10:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish he'd make up his f!@#$%^g mind. First he says "no problem", then he says this. How long before he gives a third opinion on it? Grutness...wha? 14:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we're all complete and total idiots. So much for assuming good faith. Crystallina 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since clearly being Wikimedia Chief Technical Guy exempts one from normal considerations such as consensus, civility, and answering a simple question in a straight way, I dast not speculate.  I'm no strong objection to them being subst'd, but if it's not an efficiency issue (and I thought that the main hit here was in regards to 'editing' heavily-used templates), then it's a little pointless to flip this from "must not" to "must" in any particular hurry (cvue robots making tens of thousands of edits).  Alai 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not fall into the trap of returning incivility with the same coin. I *presume* he just had a bad day. I couldn't care less if we stubst these themplates or not. Valentinian (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tl and cl 

message: I was searching for a stub template name recently and it took a while to find it. I had a look for something like :category:stub templates (like in our Turkish Wiki) but found nothing. I went to #wikipedia on IRC, had a chat and they proposed to ask a bot to do some work... 
If one analyses for example :Category:Animal stubs one needs maybe one :Category:Animal stub templates category for all those stub templates listet there but it would be nice to have a bot do it because it may be way too much work to add a Category:stub templates (or even sub categories) to every single stub template. Any ideas?  --katpatuka 10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (maybe better in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals ?)--katpatuka 10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A user has tried this one before but opinion was pretty strongly against, so the categories were deleted again. I don't think the situation has changed since then. Valentinian (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be fairly profoundly redundant;  they're listed on WP:WSS/ST, an automatically generated list is produced by a script Conscious runs to detect the "unlisted" ones as well as the above, and they're included in the stub categories themselves (both rooted at , and comprehes.  Yet another method seems unnecessary, work to maintain, and clutter in the templates.  Alai 18:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: [[:Category:stub templates]] 

message: We have  and  to provide some basic boilerplate for categories.  I'd like to propose a third  to provide boilerplate that would be appropriate for all the stub biography categories.  I have a proposed version at User:Caerwine/Template:Biography Stub Category that in addition to what  does, includes text recommending the three basic categories all biographical articles should ideally have, year of birth, year of death/not dead yet, and what they are.  Any thought for either possible improvement or abandoning this idea? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a good idea to me.  I think as well as a comment on categorisation, this might be a good place to note that occupation-based stubs types should also have a regional tag, and vice-versa.  Alai 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Category templates 

message: Over on the Commons they have a category :commons:Category:Stub pictures that has some nice pics that people might find useful for stub templates, especially the ones that mix a picture with a wiki puzzle piece. Caerwine Caerwhine 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons stub pictures 

message: I'm wondering if we should have a designated place for "noting" that a stub type is undersized.  At present, if a stub type is already on the list, or has been proposed, or has already survived an SFD, it's not really a "discovery" any more, though we could use that page regardless certainly;  or else a section on the todo page (long-standing undersized types).  I suggest this as it seems that often we take a "tiny" type to SFD, whereupon it's either populated, there's suggestions we might wait and see if it grows, or else there's protestations that it's soon to be.  A less formal process might have similar effects, and perhaps with less agro on occasion.  Alai 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of points - firstly, what you describe is a very similar thing that happens on AFD - articles taken there are either deleted or "saved" by sudden rapid growth, so i don't see that as too much of a problem. As for a list of small stubs, I though someone (actually I thought you!) kept a list of those on a user sub-page. If so, that page could easily become a de jure part of WP:WSS just by adding it to the WP:WSS category, same as I have with my geo-stub count and splitting lists. If necessary, mover the user subpage to an official WP:WSS pagename. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I do indeed (I assume you're referring to this, which is at any rate the most recent incarnation of much the same thing).  I could certainly move it to the WSS project-space if people would find that useful and convenient.  (Can't do much about the update rate, though:  I'm at the mercy of whatever the heck is going on with the db dump.)  That doesn't track creation date, whether there's a wikiproject, whether it's already been on SFD, etc, etc, so it's not a complete or integrated solution.  I'm not suggesting types being populated while on SFD is a "problem", or otherwise a bad thing at all, I'm just wondering if there's a better way to get the same good result.  Alai 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and "forked" this as .  Alai 06:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralised discussion of "undersized" types? 

message: We have a mess here, especially in, but not limited to, UK and US stub types.  I'd like to suggest the following additions to the naming guidelines.
#  If the parent non-stub category is Fooian X's  that the stub category be Fooian X stubs.
#  If the parent non-stub category is X's in/of Foo  that the stub category be Foo X stubs.
:I realize that this won't matter much to Grutness since for some inexplicable reason, Wikipedia uses New Zealand rather than New Zealander as the Fooian of New Zealand in the main categories.
Anyway, this is nice and straightforward, and I hope it will attract the support of others. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia's correct in that. New Zealand is one of those rare countries where the correct adjective is the same as the country's name. It's only the noun form of the people who live there that is different. I'm a New Zealander, that is, a New Zealand person, who lives in a New Zealand house in a New Zealand city.  Oh, and support BTW, although it'll probably mean a lot of renaming. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this for a long time, wondered whether it was all due to a peculiar technical rule :-) TheGrappler 10:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ) BTW, another reason this should be done is that we're slowly getting more flak in places like CFD for the differences between stub ncategory names and non-stub category names. Things like this, for instance. Grutness...wha? 12:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongest possible oppose.  This would institutionalise the pointless flip-flopping we already see between for example, "France this" vs. "French that" on no rational basis, rather than actually do anything to fix it.  Does anyone really think that  is an especially sensible name for a category?  Why on earth should we utilise awkward-sounding names that would never fly in the permanent category space, to purport to be consistent with same?  While not actually being so, of course, since we'd be rearranging the component words with blithe disregard to what's in any way a customary usage.  To take the implications of this scheme on its face, if "geography of France" were renamed to "French geography", we'd then flip between from "France geography stubs" to "French geography stubs"?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  There has to be some internal logic (or indeed, any logic) to stub category names, beyond "a given part of speech appeared in a parent, let's use it somewhere or other in the stub name, after throwing away the prepositions that caused that word to be used in the first place".  I'm frankly boggled Grutness would support this, having previously said exactly the opposite in at least one context, though perhaps in hindsight I shouldn't have been since we do have a lot of these "Awkward Attributive Noun geography stubs" kicking around at present.  Alai 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My support is more for the suggestion that we should try to somehow get the stub category names in line with the main categories than it is for the actual suggestion of "Foo X stubs"/"Fooian X stubs". The problem with importing the standard category names wholesale is that it would lead to some even more cumbersome combinations such as "X of Foo stubs". But the closer we can get things to consistency with the main categories the better. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd gladly support "somehow in line with" myself:  on some issues, they're pointlessly wayward, both internally, and wrt the perms.  Case in point would be the whole people/personnel/biography/biographical business, which is completely needless.  Of course, the perms are often all over the shop, too, so this is trying to hit a moving target.  I'd rather have internal consistency than external, which is in fact essentially what the perms do themselves:  have rules for each "layer", and horizontal consistency within that (... on a good day...) rather than fully-vertically-integrated common usage, particularly on nouns vs. adjectives.  Alai 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fooian X stubs vs. Foo X stubs 

message: My argument is simply this: Abolish stub types. Articles would be tagged as stubs by any user, either just like they are now (eg  appearing in the code) or perhaps by some other mechanism, such as Flickr-like tagging (see folksonomy). Then the articles would be able to be listed as stubs under the category (or categories) the article has had applied to it. If no category has been applied to the article then it will appear under an 'uncategorised' stub list.
This simply removes the problem of thousands of stub types doesn't it?
reinthal 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal crops up occasionally and does sound appealing, but there are problems with it - notably that quite a lot of the time stub articles don't have categories and an uncategorised stub list would be extremely long (even if only 5% of stubs have no category - a very low estimate - that would mean a list of 20,000 stubs). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#An alternative to stubs for a recent similar suggestion. Grutness...wha? 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That problem would only be temporary, though.  Articles with a non-general stub but no categories were presumably tagged by someone who took the time to look up the correct stub for their article, but didn't bother to add a category.  This proposal would essentially force people to add a category, and remove the redundant effort involved in giving an article a specific stub only to later add the categories that are clearly implied by that stub.  At its most extreme, we could try to work something out so that putting  in an article with no categories causes glowing red text 24-point text to appear at the top of the article that says "THIS ARTICLE IS UNCATEGORIZED.   requires a category.  Please add a category to this article along with the stub!", much like transcluding subst-only templates does now. Of course, that wouldn't work with the number of existing stubs with no categories we have...  We could always decide on a few categories that are decided by each existing stub, and run bots to slowly turn them into generic  while adding the necessary categories.  This would be almost necessary in implementing this suggestion, anyway. Once those bots had finished running, the only things left in cat:uncategorized stubs would be what's currently in Category:Stubs. --Aquillion 22:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This would be a great solution (and the only really reasonable one in the long run, in my opinion), but it requires major code changes in MediaWiki to implement properly, since MediaWiki does not support category intersections at the moment. If you can write up a patch that does it, great, but in the meantime, the status quo is what we have to use.  -- grm_wnr Esc 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are several issues here:  is a "quick technical fix" going to be available at some point;  is it OK to get rid of some of the criteria of stub-sorting, like keeping stub categories within a certain size range, which the category-intersection model would make impossible, unless there was some after-the-fact way of fixing this up;  and would such a system be more or less usable from the point of view of the "sorters"?  None of these are clear at first inspection.  I imagine we'll persist until they become moreso, or else the whole edifice collapses under the weight of the sheer amount of work required to prop it up.  There's no question that there's much inefficiency built into the current sorting of sorting and re-sorting articles, even after they have permanent categories.  Alai 03:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolish stub types altogether 

message: Can people explain exactly what their rationale, and exact criteria for "guessable" stub category names are?  Who is being assumed to be doing the guessing, and on the basis for what body of knowledge?  People working from the particular permanent category?  Other stub categories?  One or other naming conventions page?  Without further elucidation I don't know what "guessable" category name is supposed to be, much less why they're desirable, in particular above and beyond other desidirata.  Alai 06:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stub category names should be guessable" 

message: As you can see from the To Do page, we're not getting too far with stub sorting and indeed seem to be going backwards with every update bringing progressively more categories and stubs. Is there any way to fix this other than just "sort more"? Crystallina 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For stub sorters? Probably not. For editors in general? Expand stubs until they are no longer stubs (and remove the stub notice). Simple. :) --TheParanoidOne 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm seriously tempted to suggest redefining "oversized" to mean over 1000 articles in size...  Alai 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. On second thought and upon reading the edit summaries I probably should not have said anything at all, carry on. Crystallina 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the Atlantic Ocean with a teaspoon 

message: I have worked with a few individuals to form a project to eliminate poor stubs and duplicate content in favor of more comprehensive articles. I agree some articles will always be "stub" in size, but those that are suspect to development in more than 1 article for the same subject matter should be merged, and maybe split off again when deemed necessary.
WP:ʃ
Cwolfsheep 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Integration: solution to some stubs 

message: is a quad stub. kzz* 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this regions covers five countries and we normally stub geographical articles with one template per "affected" country, so this one could have had five. This method does look a bit stupid but is an attempt to make the article appear in as many relevant categories as possible. In cases such as this, using a template for each country seems to be only possibility to treat all countries equally. But it is a prime candidate for expansion. Do we have any experts around? Valentinian (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The other option is simply to revert it to its region as a MEast-geo-stub. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Grutness.  If the feature covers that many countries of the Middle East, it would be better to use the single broader-term stub. -Acjelen 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can easily buy that solution. The max. is probably around three to four countries, so this one might be a bit too much. Valentinian (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I usually use a limit of four, FWIW. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to concur.  There may be circumstances where a convoluted structure of the stub types, and an unusual article argues for more stub tags, but a simple list of countries isn't one of them, nor is any similar use of "sibling" templates.  Alai 03:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syro-African Depression 

message: FYI, I've made a request for approval for a bot-task for replacing double tags with "consolidated" stub types.  With luck, this will help somewhat with the re-sorting backlog, though it certainly won't be a complete solution by any means.  Alai 04:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A (suggested) new wheeze for dealing with articles double-stubbed into oversized categories 

message: Talking of bot requests for approval, please note this.  In extremis, what this could be is a stub-un-sorting bot, but what it really illustrates is the confused thinking about the whole "Stub-class" thing.  Is "Stub-class" the same as "stub", or not?  We were unable to get a straight and consistent answer to that when the question arose at SFD, with at least one person arguing to keep the two categories separate on the basis of being different (without really defining how, or addressing the issue of terminological confusion).  This sounds like a possible trainwreck.  Alai 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added by 2¢ to that bot request... hopefully others here might do likewise... Grutness...wha? 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Two changes related to "Stub-Class" vs "Stub". The first seems the most contentious as it has replaced a legitimate stub category with a Stub Class category. --TheParanoidOne 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Said editor now seems to be merging Stub-class and stub categories, using stub-class on articles rather than talk pages (or indeed, on both), and generally creating a mess with them.  While there's a degree of home-brew screwup at work here, I think it does also go to underscore the capacity for confusion from the terminological overlap.  Alai 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted these:  the editor in question seems to think these are "artificial" distinctions (right, great idea having talk pages and articles in the same category, obviously).  I sense this one will run and run, in one form or another, though.  Alai 18:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Class articles rearing their confusing head again 

message: I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Integration 

message: As well as merging double tags on stubs, I've also started using my bot to restub some articles on the basis of their permanent category, and parent stub type.  See the current contents of .  This method might not find the most appropriate possible stub type, but it should at least find a notionally appropriate stub type.  I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this approach, and on what instances (if any, of course) they think it's appropriate to do this on, etc.  Alai 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tentative steps in bot-work 

message: I've just created a new WPSS template for use at the top of category and template talk pages. occasionally WPSS has been tripped up by not knowing about discussion taking place on a template or category's talk page... hopefully  will reduce the chance of that happening in future. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new WPSS template

message: Would someone mind generating some support for your award? Otherwise the proposal will get archived. --evrik 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks great :) SynergeticMaggot 08:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#The_Wikiproject_Stub_Sorting_Award|Stub Sorting Award]] 

message: I think a lot of us have had the impression that it was always better to use very "light" stub images due to potential load problems with the image servers. This post from WP:VPT (Village Pump, Technical) says that this is not a problem at all, since the image is rendered only once. Apparently, we can use any type of stub image that we like.
(copied from a post with the same headline)
Q: Are some images more processing-intensive than others?  I was under the impression that image resizing and rendering was done only once (say, the first time an image is requested at ##px), so even if complex svg rendering is required, it wouldn't particularly matter.  However, a user has expressed concern that some large images should not be used for stub templates because of their high server load.  Is there truth to this? ~ Booya Bazooka 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A: A large image is rendered into a thumbnail the first time it's used at a specific size, so a large stub image has the same load on the servers as a small stub image (assuming both were thumbnailed at the same size). The load is also much smaller than you might think, due to brower caches and proxies. There was a time (about a year ago IIRC) when a lot of stub images were removed due to server load issues (the image servers were not keeping up with the load); since then, new image servers were added and it's no longer a problem. --cesarb 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What surprised me was that it seems that the servers generate a small thumbnail once and then uses this image rather than the larger file. Anyway, if I have to chose between two good images and one is a lot smaller than the other, I normally go with the smaller image. Valentinian (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image load on servers 

message: Does it say anywhere that stub templates should not be subst'ed? I've had a user telling me that I should be subst'ing all stub templates. If there is an official policy on this, I think it should be put on the project page. --Bruce1ee 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the official policy: NEVER EVER SUBST STUB TEMPLATES. EVER. Martin 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the user (aka me) was saying that he (I) had been told to subst. Happy not to - it takes fewer key clicks. Glad there's a policy. (Where?) --Dweller 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm done, really. It was pretty easy to fix. However, we probably need to write this rule somewhere easy to see. Valentinian (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's written up somewhere on one of the WP Policy pages as to which templates should be substed and which ones shouldn't - I'll see if I can find it. Grutness...wha? 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It says on WP:SUBST, but that is a bit out-of-the-way. Martin 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the one I was thinking of. It appears to be guideline rather than policy on WP, but it's regarded as policy at WP:WSS. Subst'ing stub templates causes no end of problems so it is strongly discouraged in a "don't cross the beams"-type way. Perhaps putting it in big friendly letters on WP:STUB would be a good idea. Grutness...wha? 14:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... or how about here: WP:WSS#General_rules. --Bruce1ee 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, in both places :) Grutness...wha? 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! --Bruce1ee 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subst'ing stub templates 

message: Alai made a comment about how this WikiProject is no fun, so I was wondering if there could be informal titles or something.  Something like a leadership council, but without actual responsibilities.  Alai already suggested one title:   Stub Approval Group Moderator Director For Life 
Just something fun to think about.  *shrug*  ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, seeing as how I hang out in  and work on them most, I hereby claim "Chief Rail-stub Mogul" for my own title.  B-)  Slambo (Speak) 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal titles 

message: See , and weep.  It's probably not SFDable, either, as it's not just a stub template.  (The technical term, to paraphrase Slavoj Žižek, would be "nightmare".)  Alai 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameterised multi-stub template nonsense... 

message: Category:British royalty stubs says it is for stubs relating to British royalty - however, only actual royals are currently in it. Can I add members of royal households and courtiers, etc? Dev920 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:British royalty stubs 

message: I would like to propose that articles be placed in categories at the same time they are stub sorted.  For example, if an article tagged with  is sorted to , which places it in :Category:American novelist stubs, that article would also simultaneously be placed in :Category:American novelists.  The former categorization will disappear when the stub tag is removed.  But the later category should stay, so its placement cannot be part of the stub template.  Please let me know what you think and how to best implement this.  Thanks! — Reinyday, 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory a good idea, until you look at the details.  Often the appropriate permanent category is not the one that is the parent of the stub category, but one of the parent's subcategories.  There's no good way to handle  permanent categorization than other than by manually placing the categories.  Now if we can come up with some ideas on how to encourage people to place the permanent categories, that would be great. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be possible to create a "stub-plus" template designed to be subst'd into the article, which for each type has a) the code for the stub-tag itself (not itself subst'd, of course), and b) some additional permanent categories, where that's possible.  But it'd be a good deal of work to set this up for every stub template, and if it were only done for some, it would cause more confusion than it would help things.  And it'd depend on people using it correctly, and not (for example) failing to subst it, or getting confused and substing "normal" stub templates instead.  A different approach would be to do something similar by bot:  if an article has a stub tag, but no perm-cats, add an appropriate one (where available).  Or there's the traditional wiki approach:  masses of volunteer labour will get these things done sooner or later...  Alai 03:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be way more categories than stub types, so I don't think it can be done automatically. Piet 12:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more of a problem if it were the other way around...  The above observation just means that the "automatically" added perm-cat won't be the most specific, and will typically have to be further refined by hand, and obviously there will be categories that don't correspond to a stub type at all, and hence will have to be added by hand.  So the marginal benefit over the present system (where it's all done by hand, but with the stub category placing it somewhere it the right general neighbourhood) may indeed be slight, if any.  Alai 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the spirit of the idea, but I think in practice it would be somewhat redundant.  Generally -- perhaps there are exceptions -- "Category:XYZ stubs" is already a subcategory of "Category:XYZ"... thus when a stub is sorted it is already sorted into the parent category.  As noted above, of course, this is not usually the most appropriate category, but it is a start.  What might be useful to WikiProjects and the like would be a list of "XYZ stubs without real categories."  -- Visviva 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could certainly generate such a thing.  One subtlety is how you define "real" category:  there are any number of "maintenance" categories and the like used in the article-space.  A often-useful technique is to start looking at "Category:XYZs", as you say:  those may not be the only appropriate categories, but they should have one of those at least.  Often more pressing though is that if an article is tagged with a <country>-bio-stub template it may lack any indicated of occupation or notability, either as a stub type or as a perm-cat (and vice versa).  Do you have a "customer" Wikiproject in mind for a "pilot scheme"?  Refined categorisation is also useful for driving re-sorting stubs when they get oversized, so it'd be in "our" interests to facilitate and promote this.  Alai 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization proposal 

message: I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but at least some people will see it. I saw some stub templates with a parameter, and realized that could be used as a sortkey for the categories. Of course this would require changing all the stub types (or just biological, since those should usually have sortkeys for their other categories). The appropriate section would be changed to (for )[[Category:People stubs| ]] (for some reason using | didn't work). TimBentley (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the perfect place for this comment! Actually, I've thought in the past that adding a sortkey pipe would be very useful for stubs (especially, as you point out, bio-stubs - biographical not biological, though :). It would require a helluva lot of work, though. Anyone know whether it would cause server issues for such high-use templates, or any other problems? If not, it's definitely worth considering - though, as I said, it'd be a LOT of work. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main objection is that it would considerably complicate the basic stub template code, making it even less comprehensible to casual users and coders than it already is.  We'll need to carefully document why it's there at Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_stub_template and if we can get  to produce the code after being substed, it would be even better. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this would largely wasted effort, myself.  There's over a hundred thousand bio-stubs just for starters, and ultimately, this is being done just to be thrown away.  Better to spend the effort on expanding the article.  It might be marginally easier to find the right stub if they were sorted by surname, but better that they be sorted uniformly lexigraphically than a hodge-podge of the two in a single category, which is the most likely outcome.  If people really must do this (and it's already unilaterally in place in some cases, then please used a named parameter, and not just "1".  Every so often someone gets a bright idea for a stub templates that's parameterised in some way or other, and of course invariably, "their" parameter is "1", too.  Alai 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a very good idea. go for it. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortkey 

message: I'm wondering if we should systematically employ either , or some bespoke equivalent, on "once and future oversized" stub categories.  I don't know if people pay any attention to these things, but it might be worth a shot.  A more far-reaching version would be to modify the templates to indicate they should be replaced by something more specific, though in such cases we'd have to make sure that in every case there was a suitable sub-type that would be applicable.  An interesting existing example:  .  In addition, we should probably be more systematic in out use of .  Alai 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  StubCatDiffuse? 

message: I'd more usually stick something to this effect on the /To do page, but "actor stubs still oversized and need sorting" isn't exactly in the "news" department.  Specifically, I think I've "diffused" these as much as is possible on current data.  The good(ish) news is that the actors and US actors are down to five pages, and the UK actors down to seven pages (I think the last may not be as well-categorised as the others).  Caveats would be that these have been moved in several directions at once, so there's lots of stubs that probably ought to be double-stubbed according to specific medium and nationality combos that have not, and that the judgements as to "primary" medium are rather crude:  I've moved anything with both a film and TV category (but not a stage) to "-screen-", and anything with only one of those two to that stub type;  the "stage" types don't look viable on that basis.  The bad news is, first as I said I may not be able to do much more, short of a manual slog through each of those parents, dealing with the cases that have either too little categorisation, or "too much".  And secondly, that this is going to make types like UK-tv-actor- worse and worse from here...  Alai 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor stubs status 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I find it a little POV to associate a Ying-yang with martial arts. I mean, chinese people weren't obsessed with ying-yangs and korean people didn't even know what they were until the rest of the world did. Assosiating a ying-yang with martial arts is like putting the american flag on a category called "smart people". After all, we have pretty smart people. How long is it until that is not a biased, POV statement? Has anyone realised Taekwondo is more popular than Karate? An image associated with chinese 
popular culture does not belong on a category full of martial arts stubs.Daniel_123 | Talk 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martial Arts 

message: I'm rather boggled that yet another bot proposal has shown up to create talk-page spam on an industrial scale, announcing that stubs are (coincidentally enough!) "stub-class articles" -- whodathunkit, hrm?  And what's more, this one has already been bot-flagged, and has made over 150,000 such edits already.  No wonder the db dumps are getting larger and slower, that's probably almost as many new talk pages that have been created, with remarkably little information content.  This is admittedly benign to stub-sorting per se, as it's making no automated changes to existing stub templates, but isn't the duplication getting a little ridiculous at this point?  If these things are essentially the same, why do we need two parallel structures, and if they're crucially different, why does mass-duplication of current contents make any sense?  Alai 05:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm glad that someone else is unimpressed with the assessment tags.  Obviously the people behind kingbotk think what they are doing is worthwhile.  Perhaps efforts further up the chain will be required. -Acjelen 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Person singular, AFAIK.  A manual assessment, adding some actual information content along the lines of "this is a blah-class article", where "blah-class articles" are supposedly likely to make it into WP1.0 (don't ask me what the "blah-class" threshold might be, the 1.0ists are as clear as mud on this, and for all I know are going through this exercise just for the sheer fun/hell of it) might be fair enough.  But I can't for the life of me see the point in tagging every single stub in the db, that was never at any point in any number of being selected for 1.0, with talk-page spam explicitly stating this factoid.  BTW, the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kingbotk.  While listed as "on trial run", I'm inclined to believe that the bot-flagging has been construed as de facto approval.  Alai 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Yet more'' sub-class shenanigans