Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2005

Old talk

Instead of just placing the proposal here, we should put links to talk pages that have the proposals in them so we don't flood the page with sophisticated paragraphs. --SuperDude 18:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

the other way round would be better because proposals arent meant to be on other pages theyre meant to be here. put the links on the other pages. BL kiss the lizard 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This project's enough work as it is without discussions on it being spread across the whole wiki. Keeping all the discussions - as much as possible, anyway - on this page is by far the best way to go about these things. Any discussion elsewhere could easily be moved to this page with a link at the original site of the discussion. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the suggestion to make it more like AfD, where there's an index page and subpages, so you can just watch the ones you're interested in? I don't know the mechanics of how that's done, mind you... -GTBacchus 04:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Transclusions? (I think that's the word). if so, I misunderstood the original comment, sorry (and it looks like BL Lacertae did too, which is what fooled me). With AFD the transclusions work much like templates, with each individual item having its own subpage. The problem with that is that it would add a fairly large amount of instruction creep - there would probably have to be standardised names for the proposal sections, each added in turn... other than that it could be done life cfd, where each day has a separate transclusion. Or maybe it doesn't even have to be each day - the page is currently organised in monthly sections. I...'m not sure. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

--TheParanoidOne 05:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The page size is currently approximateely 470k. Perhaps more aggressive archiving would help matters? --TheParanoidOne 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's probably a very good idea - trouble is, of course, knowing when some of these discussions are finished (the same applies on the WSS/D page). I'm amazed that it's 470k, though. I archived some last week and it was about 180k. The other problem is that too few of us are archiving, and one of those (User:Fingers-of-Pyrex) has just gone on an extended wiki-break. Grutness...wha? 22:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, the page is actually 255k, not 470k. Still too long, though... Grutness...wha? 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the weight of the displayed page, not the weight of the editable text. Either way, they're both very heavy. --TheParanoidOne 05:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I could help out with the archiving, if we need more users for that. (Just not this week though -- exams are keeping me busy.) Robert 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Aaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!! (he says with a hand full of hair.) Can someone break this page up? I can hardly edit it without it a) locking up, b) someone else editing/sometimes it tells me that and it is just me. c) waiting to load. You know us old farts on dial-up can play a game of solitare while waiting for the this page. PLEASE?!?!!?!! WikiDon 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We know. You're not the only one on dial-up (I am too, for one). The page has already been broken up once. Some vicious archiving is all that's really needed though. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

More transclusion (by month, or by day) would help with the edit clashes, delays, and lockups, but not with simply loading the page in the first place. It'd also mean having to set these up at the appropriate intervals, too, and fixing the inevitable errors when people add things to the wrong sub-page when this isn't done "on time". A more formal procedure for proposals would indeed be a nuisance for adding them, but might make archiving easier technically, and perhaps clearer procedurally, if there are better-defined "close" criteria. That might change the "tone" of the page quite a bit, though: do we want it to become more like AfD? A more modest step might be to separate out formal proposals of particular well-defined stub types, from discussions of the "how to split out X-stubs?" sort, which tend to have rather a different structure. Alai 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm just a bit concerned about instruction creep. It's already difficult enough to get people to put new proposals in the proper place on the page. Something does need to be done, though... Grutness...wha? 08:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a very valid concern. The pages that do use such systems are generally ones where admin-assistance is technically required (and in some cases, where admins acting unilaterally is highly frowned on), so the hoops pretty much have to be jumped through. Here, not only is it not technically necessary, there's almost a perverse incentive: instead of looking for a consensus to create, why not just do it out of hand, and then have us running around /D scrabbling for a consensus to delete? OTOH, excessive page size might also be a deterrent to making proposals.

One thing that might be delaying archiving is the proposals that don't get much in the way of objection, but aren't immediately created, either. Perhaps they should be "archived" too, but separately from the ones already rejected or created. A sort of "pending creation holding area". That's more 'creep too, but at least it's not front-loaded onto proposers. (And it might actually make things clearer to potential archivists, otherwise overly cautious about doing the "wrong thing".) Alai 15:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

a good number

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Proposing_new_stubs_-_procedure sais that 'a good number' of stubs is required. Weasel word extreme! Please replace it with the customary number used in decision making. What is a good number? Do I have to least 10 or 100 relevant stubs? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That wording is probably used because there is no fixed agreed-upon numbers. 80 is what's normally used for geography stubs, 60 is often the threshold for other ones. 50 might work if the existing stubs are scattered about in different categories, or if the parent categories is desperately in need of splitting, and larger categories can't be found. FWIW, WP:SFD says at least 50, but that's for keeping, not creating. --Mairi 17:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The number also depends on whether there is a WikiProject attached to the particular stub proposal, and the size of the parent category which needs splitting. There is no precise number - as Mairi says, it varies widely from case to case - hence the lack of an actual number in the listed procedure. A good rule of thumb would be at least 60, and preferably over 80, but each case is unique. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to be more specific, if that's going to be feasible. At least as a baseline from which to argue up or down. Otherwise we leave ourselves open to a handful of editors demanding special pleading for their own horribly under-sized category, citing other such as precedents, etc. I don't mind factoring in the considerations Grutness mentions, but if we can do so as systematically as possible, that'd be good. I think I'd like to see 60 established as a "hard floor" as a creation criterion, and some smaller number, say around 25 or 30, if there's a specific attached WP. Anything falling significantly short of that, without apparent scope to be populated further in the short term (that is, by sorting, not by "I'll be creating lots and lots, sometime soon", I think we should look into considering to be "speediable". Alai 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

60 for creating (30 if there's an associated wikiproject) and 25 for deletion sound reasonable figures as that "hard floor" to me - as long as there's the added caveat that beyond these base figures individual circumstances may be taken into account. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this note to Proposing new stubs - procedure box. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Factor out concluded discussions to "to do"?

I've sketched out a possible project "to do" page, to deal with miscellaneous pending business that tends to clog up this project page in particular, while beyond the "waiting period", no actively being discussed any more, and with some sort of apparent consensus. Anyone think this can be made workable? Alai 03:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And why not go so far as to actually put it to use? ;) Aecis ^praatpaal 12:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Format error

There's an annoying format error on the project page - if one clicks on a section edit, it offers you the next section below, rather than the section one wants to edit. Anyone know how to deal with it? - MPF 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably a side effect of the archiving I've been doing this weekend. If I've archived a section between the time you loaded the page and the timr you click on the edit link, then there is one less section and that section 100 you wanted to edit is now section 99. Reloading the page should solve the problem. Caerwine 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Page too long

The proposals page is too long. We should change things to shorten the page. U see, the length of the page shows a problem. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to sort stubs, and I believe we spend too much time discussing how to create stub categories. I think we should remove the one-week-wait rule. Maybe the stub type hierarchy will be worse, but we'll all spend more time on writing articles. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments of those who disagree

• The proposals page is too long, but not because of the one week rule. What we need is something to make it easier to archive discussions when they are done. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Changing the one week rule is indeed not the way to go. What might be an option is to move the proposals to subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/December 2005), similar to the format of WP:RA. It would divide the load of one massive page over several smaller pages. Another option would be to log articles sooner. I mean, there are currently proposals from July on the proposals page. If nothing has been done with those proposals in the past months, I don't think much will be done with them now. I think they can be archived as discussed but not created, or moved to To do as "approved, yet to be created". Aecis ^praatpaal 23:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• its long but thats becuase its not archived often enough. changing the rule wont work becuase the reason things hang around longer is that a lot of things need a lot of discussion and there are only so many of us trying to sort the work of thousands! BL kiss the lizard 01:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with both Aecis and BL Lacertae. More archiving would definitely help, as would some form of month-on-month transclusion (perhaps like the ones used on AFD, but done per month rather than per day). The trouble with that, though, is there would be even less ebate on the older proposals than there is now. Removing the one week moratorium is a very poor idea - that time is needed to make sure that proposals stack up properly. Removing it would simply shift the workload from here to SFD - where there would be more work, since it takes much more effort and digital paperwork to remove a stub type than to create one. As for using the time to write articles, I spend a lot of time at WP:WSS, but still managed to churn out a dozen new articles in the last week, plus 25 maps for existing articles. You don't have to spend all your time on this project! Grutness...wha? 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Instead of breaking the page by month, perhaps we could have sub-pages split by topic, with whole pages dedicated to problem categories where stubs are actively being discussed. For example, have a page for discussing stubs to create from the overgrown {{film-stub}}, a page for bio-stubs, and one for geo-stub discussions. --EncycloPetey 13:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Amen to that. I watch this page but nevertheless have to check it out periodically as I can't know whether the change occured in the section I'm interested in. Splitting it into one-page per-topic would reduce the intermixing significantly. Duja 13:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • dont think itd work. how would you split it? things would often have to be in two sections so the debate would be doubled up or worse. a split of footballers by country might be accepted on the sport page but turned down on the "split by country" page. any split by subjects gonna cause trouble. BL kiss the lizard 23:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• The problem with subpages is the same as the one when AfD (formerly VfD) was split down in daily segments; everyone who is used to the old layout is confused at first. perhaps loosing interest in the whole thing... up til now it isn't unmanageable. And we would have to worry about the form of splitting it up: is the one by topic the right form, or would we like to have something according to the noticeability of the template? Lectonar 13:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• I keep coming back to check my own proposals and noticing that proposed stub types have been created (previously redlinked, now active links) but not removed from this page. Is anyone permitted to "blue-light" items that seem to have been either resolved or abandoned? If only an admin can do that, is there anyone nominally in charge of the project who would volunteer to keep an eye out? Fwiw, I would rather have it done chronologically than topically, as I occasionally put my 2¢ in on something not usually in my bailiwick. Her Pegship 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Once something's been proposed and been here a week (assuming there are no objections) then anyone who's got some free time on their hands is perfectly free to start the split. It would be nice if they were done chronologically from the oldest ones, but sometimes a split will be more urgent, or more relevant to an area being dealt with elsewhere, so it's understandable if they're not done in proposal order. I don't really see any problems with that, though it does mean there are items on the page which no longer need to be. Perhaps rather than archiving a whole archive page at one go it would be useful to keep one "open", partially-complete archive page so that anyone who starts a split can move the reveant proposal there when the split is done. That might keep WP:WSS/P a bit shorter... Grutness...wha? 02:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I totally agree with "to keep one "open", partially-complete archive page". Both for here, and the Discoveries page. There have been times when I have seen single items that have been dealt with and can be archived, but I haven't, because of the need to find enough archivable content to justify a new page. --TheParanoidOne 05:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

Wow, I just stumbled on this page, and it sucks big time! This is completely unwiki. If someone wants to create a stub template he can just go ahead and create it. That's what WP:BOLD is there for. No need for this ridiculous procedure.  Grue  10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I take it you've never read WP:BOLD, then. It says that it is for articles, and specifically excludes templates. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that, and this ridiculous procedure has prevented chaos, imho. Lectonar 13:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It does? Where? All I see is a note indicating caution with regard to templates, but it doesn't say you shouldn't be bold with them. And the caution is, I suspect, to be taken with modifying an existing template (since it may be used in many places) as opposed to creating a new template. —Locke Cole 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

are you saying that a new template wont be used on many pages? it would be covered under "Some caution is also advised if your changes affect many other pages". also the pages first sentance "The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles" makes it obvious its about articles not templates. BL kiss the lizard 22:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole purpose of having careful stub control is to tidy up and organize stub articles for those trail-blazers who want to expand the Wikipedia. It's a behind-the-scenes activity that merely makes it easier for those hard-working writers to find articles in their fields of interest. Stubs are always meant to be temporary, so their organization should be too. Anything that fluid needs oversight or you'll end up with a pile of poo. --EncycloPetey

Agreed, the whole idea of "proposing" a stub is, on it's face, ridiculous and un-Wiki. What's next? Proposing articles? —Locke Cole 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Haven't we something like that with articles for creation just now? Lectonar 19:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You really can't read, can you? Articles can easily be deleted if necessary. Templates and (stub) categories involve a large infrastructure, and it's much harder to delete and undo them. Aecis ^praatpaal 10:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice, an insult. It couldn't be that, you know, I don't think it's as big a deal as you're portraying it. Nah, I must have a reading problem. Now excuse me while I go back to mulling nominating this page for WP:MFD. —Locke Cole 11:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Before you do, may I remind you of WP:POINT: "If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline... do' set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus; don't push the existing rule to its limits in attempt to prove it wrong, nor nominate the existing rule for deletion" (Italics by me). Aecis ^praatpaal 11:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) PS. You didn't honestly take that as an insult, did you? Please, grow some skin.

MfD

Well looks like this is up for MfD. I think this page is useful, and but it is not a policy, I've added the guideline marker to the page, not in an attempt to give it more authority, but in an attempt to show that it is not a policy, if anyone thinks this is too bold, feel free to remove it, but please comment here. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think the guideline marker belongs here. WP:STUB is already a guideleine, and it says basically the same things, and points here. Conscious 07:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What about WikiProjects creating stubs

First off, I think this project in general is a good idea, and I certainly don't think that deletion is warranted. However, I find it a little patronising that if some of us in WP:CVG want to add new stub types that we as a WikiProject feel is necessary to Category:Computer and video game stubs, we need to get permission from here. If we have consensus on what stubs are necessary, do you think we cannot be trusted to behave sensibly? What I am proposing basically is that stubs that are created in certain subject areas by members of a WikiProject related to that subject should be given the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing. Thoughts? Jacoplane 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What I think I would prefer is that if a Wikiproject is discussing creating a stub, that they mention the discussion here before creating it, to get more input (particularly if it also falls under a stub type that's outside the wikiproject; e.g. I'd rather hear about {{hardware-cvg-stub}} beforehand than {{shooter-cvg-stub}}). In the same fashion, if we're discussing splitting a stub that has an associated wikiproject, we ought to go mention to them the discussion. (whether that already happens, I don't know.)

At the very least, if a wikiproject creates a stub, they ought to add it to WP:WSS/ST and preferably mention on one of the pages for WP:WSS that it's been created. That way we don't wonder where the stub type came from when we find it later, and WP:WSS/ST is up to date so people can use it for sorting. --Mairi 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much problem in WikiProjects having stubs, and I doubt there'd be many cases where they'd be turned doiwn here (if any), but consider the number of times we've had WikiProjects create their own stub only for us to later need to rename the stub or category. Checking here first would guarantee that the stub name fitted in with the naming guidelines, and would save everyone a great deal of work later. For that reason, I still think having a stub type checked out here before creation is a Good thing. Also there will be rare occasions (such as the current Category:La Raza stubs situation) where a WikiProject's proposed stub cuts across existing categories quite badly and may not be truly practicable. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, there are already too many stub categories, and it's evil. don't let wikiprojects get this disease :)