Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceyockey (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 15 March 2005 (→User stubs?: ~28 of them by my count). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For creation, deletion or merge of stubs,
see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria!

The same page is for discussion of the hierarchy of stub categories.

To view a summary / guidelines of previous topics discussed, see /Guidelines

Archives material is available here by date of cleanup: Feb 2005, Feb 15,2005, March 2005.

To Do List

Pending tasks for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 9:

edit this list - add to watchlist

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive 9/to do

New stub images

User:500LL has been putting a lot of work into adding new stub images, some of which are a big improvement. However, there has been some discussion at User talk:500LL about the legal status of these images. I've looked over the site that they come from and I'm having trouble finding a clear, unambiguous statement. (However, the freeware origin of some of the images offered at the site is dubious.)

I'd like to say that what is best all around is for us to always use custom-made images (i.e. images made entirely by Wikipedians, perhaps based on other public domain or GFDL images made by Wikipedians) whenever possible, so that we can know exactly where we stand. What do you think? Can anyone else figure out the copyright status of those images? (This effects a large number of templates.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First use PD images (and/or altered versions), then use GFDL or GNU images, then anything on the Wikipedia (and copy the tag over). -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I must admit to having been a tad miffed by some of the new images - simply because I'd put quite a bit of work into creating or finding some of the old ones. But I agree that a lot of the images are good. I can't see any clear-cut copyright info about them either, though. Grutness|hello? 01:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As freeware goes, I think that comes very close to Public Domain. I'm having a deja vu on this discussion. And we really need to start breaking this page up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Some of the images at www.freegaia.com are absolutely not public domain. (I say this because I recognize the source for some. There are some others that are of trademarked characters and I don't believe those even can be public domain, though they may arguably be fair use.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
maybe I misunderstood ... "stub images" might pertain only to those thumbnails that go with the stub templates? If yes, then I was confused. Courtland 02:49, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Going back to the "made by Wikipedians" statement ... I've considered whipping out the digital camera and snapping a couple of things for inclusion here, but I've hesitated because, well, I'm not a professional photographer and we do want a glossy looking product, yes? However, I'm torn by that other side pulling which says "Content is King!". What do you think? Is there a "holding pen" where images that should not see the light of day are restrained for the good of all? Or should we "be BOLD" and put things up and let the community decide? That last could, in this age of digital photography, open the gates to a veritable flood of color. Courtland 02:44, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the little ones used on stub templates. And I suppose it's better to use decent images in general. (But I do think that marginally decent user-created images have precedence over marginally decent images from who-knows-what source.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Musician-stub.gif "and many others like it" have turned up on Wikipedia:Image sleuthing; apparently they come from http://www.iconarchive.com, which has a no-commerical-use license. It's looking very much like we'll have to go back to the old ones. —Korath (Talk) 14:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Could you compile a list of the things that need to be retired/replaced and put it here? Courtland 19:29, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Redundant stub notices

I've come across a couple of articles with two stub notices on them. At the time of writing, Guiseley railway station is an example. I presume this practice is to deprecated? Which should take precedence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Stub sorting policy. Most people currently seem to be okay with two (different) stub templates being added to an article, as long as they are both equally appropriate. (This increases the chances of the stub being found by someone interested in expanding it.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Early on I was lightly admonished for adding two stubs and have since added only a single stub then if there is a burning for additional categorization, I do a standard article categorization. For instance, I felt strongly about getting Urakami into the right categories, as ground zero for the US bombing of Nagasaki. As far as things I've found, I saw a stub the other day with 5 stub notices ... I stripped all but one from that item (I don't remember what the article was). Courtland 02:37, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • I just became guilty of an egregious (though justified?) case of "over-stubbing" (? "multi-stubbing"): Love Child. It began as as a sub-stub + book-stub, then I found it and ... well, now it's a Frankenstein's Monster of the stubbing world. :) Courtland 03:47, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Unfortunately I got into a rather heated disagreement with an editor over this one and now the Frankenstein's Monster is dead and buried. Courtland 18:03, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Using this search [1], I've re-stubbed many of the first 750 results. Since the search is not done in "real-time", anyone using the same search should start farther down the list and please say where, so as to avoid duplication of effort. Personally, I think this is faster and more efficient than everyone going through the list and only stubbing articles that suit them. (If you're doing that, thats fine too.) I understand some of you may not appreciate having a bunch of stuff thrown into a general stub category, like people-stub for instance, but at least they are better sorted now than before. If you think this creates more work for you, then just leave them alone and I (or someone else) will eventually re-stub them under the proper category (like writer, scientist, etc). One way or another this will get done. :) --jag123 01:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course if you don't feel comfortable editing stubs out of your field, simply add another key word like bacteria or Zealand or ... you get the picture. Onco p53 02:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't. What do you mean add another keyword? --jag123 03:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well in the search field, after the "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" bit but before the site restriction code ie. "site:en.wikipedia.org" add one (or a few)words. I did this for bacteria, fungi, anatomy, Zealand, and microbiology. In this way the search is restricted to only stubby pages with those terms. I do this as these are topics that I know and can reliably put the correct stub, and maybe some more editing too. Screeds of pages about people I have never heard of before don't really interest me. Onco p53 03:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, the google search seems to end prematurely. After going through the first 20 pages, you can repeat the search to get some omitted results, but after about 4 times of doing so, you reach the end and you don't get newer results. --jag123 17:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

anatomy: I just re-checked this URL and it returned only one entry
biology: Another search worked through the other day => biology "this is a stub" site:en.wikipedia.org now returns 0 hits.
biochemistry: biochemistry "this is a stub" site:en.wikipedia.org also now returns 0 hits. Courtland 03:35, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

A question about category limits

The article Andreas Karlstadt relates to a chuch theologian and reformer. Would he get a simple bio-stub, or do theologians count under philosophers and qualiy for philo-stub? Grutness|hello? 05:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the 15th Century, philosophy and religious thought were tightly intertwined. So I'd suggest philo-stub. I would also categorize it to Category:Christian_philosophers (non-stub category) Courtland 05:26, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
... and/or perhaps to Category:German_theologians (ibid)
On the other hand, I would think it would be more likely that someone who knows church history would edit it, in which case christianity-stub might be a better choice. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. OK, based on this input, I've stubbed Magnus_III_of_Norway to Category:Historical stubs ... monarchies are often subjected to close scrutiny in historical works and a person who is a member of a monarchy (for which there is not a general geographical stub, like Category:Norway-related stubs) is better stubbed to Category:Historical stubs than the more general Category:People stubs. Is that thinking more along the lines you are? Courtland 03:50, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
It also ties in to the idea about multiple stubs. I see nothing wrong with an Italian politician, say, in tagging the article as both an Italy-related stub and a bio-stub. Similarly, Andreas Karlstadt is both a philo-stub and a Christianity-stub. Grutness|hello? 05:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong - the final geo-stub

I suddenly noticed that almost every remaining unsubcategorised article in Category:Geography stubs was a British overseas territory stub. So the last one is - {{BritOT-geo-stub}}. Grutness|hello? 00:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Science Stubs Census - new page

I've moved the Science Stubs Census materials to a new page: User:Ceyockey/Science_stub_census. Please feel free to modify this page or add more data. I didn't think for general purposes that the detailed census that was done earlier was needed, so this is what I think might be the minimum useful information. Let me know if you disagree ... also, if things go automated, I'd be happy to retire/archive this page. Courtland 03:22, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Meta-templates revisited

From my understanding, meta templates are a problem since they are used in every stub template, which accounts for 20-30K articles, and this creates load problems. Am I correct in assuming that if every current stub template had a "hard-coded" equivalent of the metapic or metastub template (or pure html), then there would be no problem? If that's the case, then I'll change all the templates myself and everyone will be happy... right? --jag123 05:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shorter lag time?

Could we change the policy to state that, if there are no objections after, say, 3 days, the stub template can go ahead and be deleted *edit: this was really supposed to say "created"*? (We're having to wait too long for templates that are clearly needed.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • 10 days is the standard vote time on TFD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for quick deletion. 10 days is a reasonable period. I don't think we're under any real time pressure, so let's not rush. Courtland 03:23, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
Whoah, we're not talking about deletion here. It is not at all the same thing as any of the deletion voting processes. As it currently stands, it's only as a courtesy that I am suggesting templates here before creating them; there is no Wikipedia policy that says that I can't just create them.
I really think we need a way to get the templates into existence more quickly. (If I've got over 100 articles, why on earth do I have to wait a week? Or even wait at all? We don't have approval periods for categories, articles, or any other templates.) It's extremely frustrating to be constantly running into stubs that I could be sorting (or sorting better, so they won't have to be resorted) if I could only create the categories.
We actually allow articles and categories to be deleted with less time and effort than this takes. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm definitely with Aranel on this one - if she's talking about stub creation (the original message was confusing, to say the least!). If there's a need for a category, it's pretty obvious, and it shouldn't take long (and certainly not ten days) to work out whether it's viable and what the limits of the category should be. I'd say 3-5 days is plenty of time (in some cases, half an hour of stub-sorting is all that's needed before it becomes obvious that there's a category missing!) Grutness|hello? 05:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for quick creation: I was opposing the deletion that was the original message focus. Personally, though, I will still not just walk in and start creating stub templates and categories ... I'd rather get some input upfront prior to the creation, but that's just a personal weakness of not being Bold enough, I suppose. Courtland 07:15, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
heh! The opposite, I'd say. Impatience is my weakness - prudence is your strength! :) Grutness|hello?
Oops, sorry. It wasn't confusing, it was just wrong. I meant to be talking about stub creation. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What policy are you referring to exactly? Are you talking about deleting stubs after 3 days or just creating them? You're right, asking for a stub to be made is only a courtesy. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to create a new stub template, so long as the reasons are sound. If you think your template won't fit the criterias currently being proposed under /Guidelines and that it will/might be deleted, then you'd really just be wasting your time. (I don't doubt whatever stub you want is probably needed, I'm just saying.) --jag123 09:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to be talking about stub template creation. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

phys-stub vs. physics-stub

I notice a change has been made to the former Template:phys-stub changing it to Template:physics-stub. This was done by User:Eequor with the note "Decrypt." Eequor created a redirect from Template:phys-stub to Template:physics-stub. I thought I'd read on here that such redirects are a no-no, something to be avoided because it messes with automated processes. I would take action and do a switch back, but I don't want to do that unless there's a reason to. Courtland 23:10, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Physics-stub is certainly a lot easier to remember. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And less confusing... physiotherapy, physical education, physiognomy... How many articles have "phys-stub" on them? If it's a small number, then deleting the phys-stub template might be the best option. Grutness|hello? 00:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not a small number. There are currently 427. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
see related => Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#phys-stub Courtland 16:44, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

New stub "Scientist-stub"

Err I had no idea you needed approval to make a new stub, so this is a notification that I have made a stub for biographical articles about scientists. What is the next step to get it approved? --LexCorp 23:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't - it's just a courtesy to go through the process here, to make sure that someone else isn't organising the same groups of stubs in a different way. If there's a logical need for a stub, then I don't think anyone's going to object. Check the full lst of stub messages to see whether it seems to fit in with the general scheme of things (which scientist-stub does, I'm glad to say), then go for it. Be warned, though - if a stub message is created that hasn't been vetted here, there's a higher chance that someone will suggest deleting it. But if it proves to be useful, that shouldn't be a problem. One final note - make sure that you add any new stubs to the full list of stub messages, and also make sure that you tell people here (and preferably on any other relevant wikiprojects) what you've done. Ideally it would be good to go through a process of having the new idea debated first (on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria), but it's not imperative. And if the stub's already made, then it would be a definite case of shutting the stable door after the horse's bolted. Grutness|hello? 00:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To be more precise, at least ask for council as for the hierarchy of the stub.
It was already planned for creation, so no worry, however, the implementation could be adjusted:
All on which I have now implemented except for moving it. Circeus 00:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have now posted a proposal for the stub. Thanks for info and changes. --LexCorp 01:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the...?

template:China-stub, template:Taiwan-stub, and template:China-geo-stub have all just been listed over at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, with their related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. I'm not telling you how to vote, but if you'd care to protest...? Grutness|hello? 23:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we've a new type of vandal in our midst. Courtland 23:52, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
It's more of a rearrangement involving all three templates than an outright deletion...--jag123 00:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's still unneccessary, given how well populated these stub categories are and how well they fit into the current stub sortiing scheme. Grutness|hello?

Flag the stubs in category listings

I thought of this the other day when I was looking about for stubs in particular categories. It would be quite useful to have articles that are stubs obviously exposed in the listings of articles in categories. For instance, in the main article category Category:Mathematicians, to have an asterisk or some indicator next to the article titles that are stubs would be very useful for both users of the Encyclopedia and contributors to the Encyclopedia alike. Maybe this has been brought up and rejected before, but I thought I'd unknowingly re-hash old ground nonetheless if that is the case. Courtland 00:11, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

There used to be an option in your settings to have stubs (defined as being below a certain file size that you could set) tagged in some way. (I never used it so I don't know what it looked like.) It was removed because it was too much of a strain on the database, I believe. This sounds like a similar concept, as I understand it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan-stub

(and the category Category:Taiwan-related stubs)

The flag of the Republic of China (ROC) is used in this template, and the articles linked to it can be ROC-related. Taiwan is not an accurate and NPOV terms to refer to the ROC, for neither the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan covers 100% of ROC's territories.
Suggestions: rename as Template:ROC-stub (or Template:Republic of China-stub), or spliting into Template:ROC-stub and Template:Taiwan-stub.
(see also relevant discussions at Wikipedia:Requested moves) — Instantnood 19:20, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

(copy and paste from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Taiwan-stub, see also the discussion there.) — Instantnood 12:04, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Template:China-stub

(and the category Category:China-related stubs)

Currently it covers stubs of both mainland China-related topics and China-related topics. The former deals with articles of mainland China (i.e. People's Republic of China (PRC) excluding Hong Kong and Macao), and the latter deals with things about China in general, such as historical events, calligraphy, etc.

The suggestion is to split the template into two, with the titles Template:China-stub and Template:Mainland China-stub respectively. — Instantnood 20:53, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

(copy and paste from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:China-stub, see also the discussion there.) — Instantnood 12:07, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Template:China-geo-stub

(and the category Category:China geography stubs)

Currently it covers geostubs of both mainland China and territories under the control of the Republic of China (ROC). Hong Kong geostubs are already covered by Template:Hong Kong-geo-stub.

The suggestion is to split the template into two, with the titles Template:Mainland China-geo-stub and Template:ROC-geo-stub (or Template:Republic of China-geo-stub) respectively. — Instantnood 20:56, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

(copy and paste from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:China-geo-stub, see also the discussion there.) — Instantnood 12:07, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Africa-stub scope

Should this include Madagascar or is there a better place to stub Madagascar-related stubs to? Courtland 16:47, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

  • Africa-stub. I don't believe considering Madagascar part of Africa is being questionned. --jag123 17:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a part of the African continent. --YixilTesiphon 23:02, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • For the purposes of stub-sorting, Africa seems to include Madagascar, the Comoros, Mayotte, Reunion, Mauritius, the Seychelles, the Cape Verde Islands, and the Sinai Peninsula, all of which have strong links to Africa. The following are stubbed elsewhere: Azores (Portugal), Canaries (Spain), St Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha (UK Overseas territories). Grutness|hello? 00:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • mind if I add that detail somewhere unobtrusive to Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs? Courtland 22:55, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
    • It would be helpful if the talk page for the template (or else the category page) explained what territories go in what geo-stub category. They do get rather complicated if you're not 100% comfortable with your world geography. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good idea. It is easy to overlook that people don't always where which country is, especially where there might be doubt as to where a continent's borders are. Grutness|hello? 03:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Content & Wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting

I've looked briefly back through the archives of discussions here and haven't found discussion of editing the main Stub sorting Project page (if I missed it and its there, please post the information here:


I've a couple of suggestions for consideration:

  1. Include "What is a stub?", a definition, in the Scope section.
  2. Reword the existing sentence in the Scope section to read This WikiProject aims to sort stubs into categories to facilitate their future expansion by bringing them to the attention of persons with specific knowledge of those topic areas. Included in this aim is the creation and deletion of stub templates and corresponding stub categories.
  3. Rewording the existing Goals section to read:
    1. Better categorization of stubs (i.e. stub sorting)
    2. Consistency in stub sorting
    3. Manageable sizes for stub categories (roughly <300 stubs each)
    4. Overall facilitating the graduation of stubs to full article status, merger of stubs into existing articles, or deletion of stubs if they are inconsistent with Wikipedia content policies.
  4. About the Infoboxes section ... what does that mean?
  5. Add a line to the Participants section such as If you would like to join this WikiProject, insert your name in the list here and introduce yourself in the Discussion section for this article.

That's quite a bit, I know. Some of the discussion in the past couple of weeks suggested that maybe the Project Page needed a bit of change to keep up with the outcomes of those discussions. Courtland 22:52, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

animal-stub vs. biosci-stub

See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Stubs#animal-stub_vs_biosci-stub for this discussion if you're interested and haven't already seen it. (I seldom go to that talk page, myself) Courtland 22:59, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

dog-stub => pet-stub? (won't happen)

There was a suggestion @ Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Stubs#animal-stub_vs_biosci-stub that the dog-stub be expanded to be a general pet-stub. I'm not very supportive of this, as the dog-category in general hits a specific and active community of both hobbyists and professionals. Nonetheless, I wanted to transfer that thought here and put it up for consideration. Courtland 23:18, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

  • Dog: keep the stub as dog-stub and don't convert to pet-stub. Courtland 23:18, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Keep dog stub as is. If there is enough demand for another separate animal stub (or group of animals) then there would be no reason why not to add it. "Pet" is a bit too ambiguous, though. Do we include iguanas? Alpacas? Tigers? All have been kept as pets... Grutness|hello? 03:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keepdog-stub as is. Gracious me--I'm just seeing this. The dog project at Wikipedia has worked very hard and is extremely organized and very specific; 'pet' is way too general. I'm going to inform the members of this suggestion; we didn't know anything about it--at least, I didn't. Quill 04:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep dog-stub as is. Even the stub message is very explicit to dogs, and if you look at Category:Dog_stubs, you'll see that there's quite a list there. I almost hate to use the word "polluted" to what would happen to this list if random other articles were added to it; would also lose the (hopefully) helpful info in the dog-stub message. Elf | Talk 19:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry folks, this never made it to "Templates for deletion". I put it here so as to prepare in case it did, as the sentiment was out there. Thanks; we'll archive this away for future reference. Courtland 17:01, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Science Stubs Census - update for 20Feb

see User:Ceyockey/Science_stub_census#Top_Level_Counts

  • all categories increased except for Category:Knot stubs, which decreased by ~17% (from 84 to 70 stubs).
    • as a side note, other categories have decreased substantially before, though due to population of sub-categories ... Template:sci-stub, by ~50% for the 29Dec-9Feb period; Template:biosci-stub, by ~30% for the same period
  • the average stubs per category (includes all sub-categories) increased from 247 to 279.
  • the largest ratio increase for a category was for the Template:climate-stub, which increased ~270% between 14Feb and 20Feb, followed by Template:mathbiostub which increased by ~68%.

I have more detailed statistics in an Excel spreadsheet, but I think this is about the granularity that most people might be interested in Courtland 04:07, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Quebec-related_stubs Courtland 14:11, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

People from Quebec stub category up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:People_from_Quebec_stubs Courtland 14:13, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Taiwan and China

After some deep thought, more information coming to light, and seemingly endless wrangling on tfd, I've come up with a possible solution to the Taiwan/RoC and China/PRChina stub issues, which I've listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria. Please have a look and make any comments you see fit! Grutness|hello? 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub lists more articles than Category:Stub. Is this because the stub template hasn't always categorised its articles? Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 13:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct. Sometimes the stub template has categorized its articles and sometimes it hasn't. (Too bad "what links here" only displays 500. Although it would probably be an impossible drain on the server if it didn't.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to one of the Wikipedia developers, User:Jamesday, large categories have a significant effect upon database performance. That is the reason that the Category:Stub was removed from Template:Stub (see Template talk:Stub and Wikipedia talk:Meta-templates considered harmful). The category was recently readded to the template, but it looks like it was done by someone who didn't look at the debate on the template's talk page. The developers prefer a category that is less than 500 articles, but definately less than 1,000. Since the stub category has over 4,000 articles (of the over 15,000 total articles with the stub template), the stub category should be removed from the stub template until the category gets back down below 1,000. BlankVerse ∅ 21:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Was this discussion before or after the change to only display 200 articles at once? -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could it be done by changing the text of the stub template to [[Category:Stubs (start with {{{1}}})]]. When the tag {{stub}} is added to an article start with the letter A, it should be added as {{stub|A}}. This will link articles with the stub template to the corresponding stubs categories according the first letter of the title. — Instantnood 07:30 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)

Substubs

Template:Substub is up for potential deletion on tfd, and the vote looks close. While I think there's little point in the template, I'd be worried if it were removed at the moment, gven the large number of artcieles that use it. Either they will have the template removed with no replacement, or they will be changed to plain stubs - adding a couple of thousand items to the current pile of unsifted stubs.

Whatever the outcome of the vote, can I urge the people currently going through Category:Stub to spend some time sifting substubs as well? Reducing the number of substubs is as useful as sifting stubs, and may prevent (or at least reduce) problems should the vote be for deletion of the substub template! Grutness|hello? 01:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up ... The request for deletion did not go through and got moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted ... Courtland 19:40, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

All the stub types

Like me, you may well get fed up with waiting for all the icons and tables to load at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs when you want to find out which stub to use on a particular article. for that reason, I've added an extra page to my user pages (User:Grutness/Stubs) with a plain-text list of all the stub templates listed as they stand now (00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)). Feel free to amend the list when new stubs are created (but make sure you only list them with SINGLE curly brackets! I don't want my user pages covered in templates!). Also, feel free to advertise this page anywhere where stub sorting is going on. Grutness|hello? 00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is SO awesome; I was wrestling just last week with how to view or print the list easily so I didn't have to deal with that huge table-driven page and was having no luck at all. You're a lifesaver! Elf | Talk 15:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

new stub categories

hi, i think there are a few more stub categories needed, anyone whos been sorting them much recently will agree, i dont know how to make a new one so would appreciate it if some else could (sorry)! those categories are: business/marketing, sociology, phrases/figures of speech, and maybe jobs/industry. thanks in advance. Bluemoose 10:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

oh and possibly one for objects/materials, thanks Bluemoose 10:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

internet-stub --- creation proposal

As I understand it, {{compu-domain-stub}} was designed to deal with articles like .af or .ch, of which there were a whole bunch. But most of them aren't in that category; I don't know if they're considered non-stubby at their current length. But a lot of people seem to be getting confused and putting websites there instead of in {{website-stub}}. I found alt.folklore.urban in there today.

So, there's clearly a need here. compu-domain-stub should be for TLDs only. website-stub should be for actual websites. And we should have internet-stub above both of them to catch things like alt.folklore.urban.

Thoughts? Objections? There's a lot of stuff to sort out of {{compu-stub}}. grendel|khan 17:40, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)


Discussion on the compu-stub talk page failed to come up with anything more to add to the ccTLD (county code Top Level Domain) at least in a general sense (individual entries certainly do). There isn't much to say about a ccTLD beyond what it is used for (though there are some interesting notes in some of the entries). Since there is nothing to add they are complete and the stub template was removed. Please correct me if you can think of material that should be added to the majority of ccTLDs. RJFJR 04:19, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

dance-stub?

Ought there to be a stub category for dance-related topics? Alai 01:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was suggested on the criteria page and now Template:Dance-stub has been created. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

compu-hardware-stub

I've added a new stub, {{compu-hardware-stub}}. There's plenty in {{compu-stub}} which can be moved down into it; it's partly done already. There's some merge work that needs to be done with {{microcompu-stub}}---it's already under the new category; perhaps it should be moved to just cover CPUs. grendel|khan 03:16, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

All the stub categories - UPDATE

The full plain-text list of stub categories (formerly at User:Grutness/Stubs) is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types, complete with links to the templates. Grutness|hello? 08:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Journalist

We seem to have a large number of journalists stub articles. Are journalist writers (for the sake of writer-stub) or are they currently sorted in bio-stub? Are there enough entries and is it distinctive enough to warrant a seperate stub category? RJFJR 05:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • I generally stub journalists to Template:writer-stub. Courtland 05:15, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  • If they're both journalists and writers, then writer-stub is fine. Just watch out for any photojournalists, who are not writers! Grutness|hello? 07:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (who is writing here as a distractor task from writing his newspaper column! :)
  • I do think it might be worth pulling out the journalists into a separate category. Category:Writer stubs is rather large. -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed on both counts ... I merely put in where I currently stub to. Courtland 18:00, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  • If you create this stub template and category, I'd suggest that one parent category in addition to the core be Category:Journalists (obvious, I know ... sorry). Courtland 00:56, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Comics-stub subcategories

Category:Comics stubs has grown to a nearly unmanageable size (564 articles and counting). WikiProject Comics would like to create subcategories for Marvel Comics stubs, DC Comics stubs, and comics creators stubs, along with corresponding templates. Any objections? — Gwalla | Talk 22:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • No objection. Do you think that most of what they are looking for are stub categories that are congruent with the sub-categories of Category:Comic_books? Courtland 22:26, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
    • Pretty much. Things like "DC-Thompson-comics-stub" have also been proposed, but the idea right now is to first break out the two main companies plus artists/writers, and see where we're at. — Gwalla | Talk 22:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's supported by a whole WikiProject, it's unlikely that many people will object, as long as there is a reasonable number of articles in each category. (The only difficulty with comic book companies is that if the article doesn't specify which one, the average stub-sorter will not be able to tell. This is okay if you're willing to go through Category:Comics stubs periodically and deal with the less accurately sorted ones.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's true. Most people who add articles on characters know what company owns them, though, fortunately. — Gwalla | Talk 22:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and get started. — Gwalla | Talk 23:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nationalising bio-stubs

I think everybody agrees that the bio-stub category is getting far too big. Recently I have been protesting at the lack of categories for general stubs related to e.g. Norway other than geo-stubs. Perhaps people seemed to think that there wouldn't be much point in having a Norway-stub category like we do for US-stubs and UK-stub. Then I had a closer look and found out that there actually was a Norway-bio-stub category, not listed on Wikipedia:Stub categories, a type I thought would probably be useless (if there aren't enough general non-geo articles on Norway how could there possibly be enough bio ones alone?). Looking inside that category I found only 23 bio-stubs, a number which I think we can all agree is too small. But then I tried finding any stray Norwegian bio-stubs that might keep those 23 company. Without too much effort on my part I soon boosted that number to 230! Of course, part of my original quibble still stands (what if I do find a non-bio stub on Norwegian culture for example? My proposal for this involved regional stub categories in instances where national ones would be too small, but that's another story altogether...). But the point that I would like to make, for when the inevitable "let's break up the bio-stub category" comes, is that doing it by career isn't the only way. It seems from my Norwegian experience that even fairly small countries are actually likely to have sufficient numbers of biostubs to make it worthwhile. The opposite problem is entirely likely - countries prominent in Wikipedia will have giant national biostub categories (I suspect we'd soon see US-writer, US-politician, US-actor etc) but (a) at least that would constitute an improvement over the present and (b) it would mean that biostubs could be localised both in terms of the field that the person achieved fame in and their geographical context, both of which would help users track down stubs within their field of expertise for expanding. Really I'm just laying this down for any future discussion - if somebody says "oh, but country X couldn't possibly have enough biostubs to justify a category for them" they could well be wrong (especially because a huge number of countries have had stubs made for their historic and political leaders etc). The thing that I would like to know is why Norway-bio-stubs wasn't mentioned on Wikipedia:Stub categories? Was it created by an unofficial back-channel and never noticed? Other categories like chess-stub don't show up either, so I think that the page may need some updating. Thanks! --VivaEmilyDavies 19:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes people who are not connected with or even necessarily aware of the project create stub templates because hey, they see that there are other stub templates, and they don't realize that there are guidelines for their creation. (This is generally fine. It's how Wikipedia works.) Stub templates created under those circumstances often don't show up on any lists because the person who created them wasn't aware that the lists existed in the first place.
I posted about this under Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#More people stubs. The criteria page seems to be the preferred place for discussing new stub suggestions (which is why it is linked to from the top of this page!)--suggestions made on this page tend not to receive very many comments. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sports-stub children

Right now there are only 3 stub categories that are children of Category:Sports stubs, Category:American football stubs, Category:Baseball stubs and Category:Basketball stubs.

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types, shouldn't we make the items in the "Sports" section children of Category:Sports stubs?

Courtland 07:12, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

There are lots more, they just don't show up on the first page of the category. There should be a list of more specific templates to use, as there is with some of the other parent categories. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stubs among random page pulls

I was curious about the prevalence of stubs in Wikipedia, so I randomly called up 40 pages ... 21 of these were stubs, more than half stubbed to general-stub. Courtland 08:41, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Stub categories up for deletion

On Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion are

Courtland 18:31, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

(Even more) new stub images

I've updated the image for {{Afghanistan-geo-stub}}. Before I spend several days going through the rest of the country-specific geo-stub templates and doing the same: is it worth the effort? And is there anything in need of systematic improvement in this first image that I should know about before doing the rest? (e.g., should I pre-shrink the map, or leave it large? Is the border visible enough? Or should it be removed entirely?) —Korath (Talk) 19:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

NO!!! Many of the images have been thought out very carefully, to avoid offending people. The ones that use flags rather than maps do so mainly because there is disputed territory involved - the ones that use plain maps rather than flag maps do so because the flags will not work as "fills" for the maps. Those that use neither have very logical reasons for them, often debated at length on any wiki topics relating to the countries involved. In the case of Afghanistan, several border regions are disputed with its neighbours. For that reason, no map was used and a national flag was used instead. Grutness|hello? 22:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't realized there was that much thought behind the choice of stub icons. Good to know. Courtland 23:53, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
Korea-geo-stub took the longest, treading gently around political issues (and I'm fairly proud of the result, to be honest). China-geo-stub and China-stub were both debated at great length (the icons that is... the stubs themselves have also generated a fair amount of talk!), as was India-geo-stub. Grutness|hello?

I apologize for the blunder; the sad thing is, I was already vaguely aware that Afghanistan had border issues, but it didn't occur to me that the omission of a map was intentional. The appearance, if not the reality, was that many of the images were chosen on an ad-hoc basis of what was already available, and the discussion above in New stub images only reinforced that. Perhaps a warning worded similarly to the start of Template:controversial3 should be added to Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs to prevent someone else from coming along and trying to be helpful? —Korath (Talk) 10:07, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea... I shall do that to both there and the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. Grutness|hello? 10:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sportspeople stubs categorization

Category:Sportspeople stubs is currently a child of Category:People stubs.

Would it be ok with you if this category were also made a child of Category:Sports stubs?

Courtland 04:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

I'm surprised it isn't already set up like that. (This isn't a major enough change that you need to start a discussion first, though. It's easy enough to fix if we decide we disagree.) I went ahead and did it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 04:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised as well. That would seem the logical thing to me (like Politician-stubs being in both subcat of People-stubs and Politics-stubs). Grutness|hello? 05:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Progress

Hi there! I surfed into here from after doing sorting work on Deadend pages (most of which are stubs). I believe categorization is one of the most important steps of Wikipedia. I was wondering about something...

  • Is stub sorting making relative progress, or are stubs being created faster than they can be sorted?
  • Are stubs in fact being expanded, once sorted out, or are they being created faster than they can be expanded?
  • If the answer to either is 'no', what could be done about this? Would automation/botting help? Or should other measures be taken?
Yours, Radiant! 15:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is a definite "yes". It's hard to get a reliable count, but you can look at the first page of Category:Stub and note that it is reliably showing more than the first half of the alphabet on the first page. (When I started sorting, just the A and B entries were too much for the first page.) Beyond that is less well-sorted. Note that we are also dealing with pre-existing stubs that are just being edited (since that "activates" the template categorization). In theory, once we get through that backlog (which is admittedly enormous), progress will move even more quickly. The vast majority of the stubs that I sort are pre-existing, not new.
As fo the second, I don't know. I've noticed a few isolated instances of people saying that they go through stub categories to find articles to expand. (I used to do this with Tolkien articles when I first joined Wikipedia. It was useful then and is presumably still useful now, especially with teh smaller categories.) There is also a tendency to weed out more of the stubs that really should be deleted, since sorting draws more attention to them.
The primary difficulty of sorting remains that most people don't sort, so Category:Stub continues to grow. Probably the second biggest problem is that some of the stub categories (Category:People stubs) are so huge that they are basically no more useful than Category:Stub. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Category:Stub was down to under eight pages (1600 stubs) yesterday for the first time. It may be the right time to start dividing bio-stub up properly, same as was done to geo-stub. Oh, and in answer to Radiant!'s second question, a lot of the stubs are being expanded once they are further sorted, at least if my random sample is anything to go by. I added 20 stubs at random to my watchlist for a week when I subcategorised them, and seven or eight of those were worked on within the week. Three (IIRC) were expanded well beyond stub level. The subcategories seem to be doing their job of alerting editors who know particular subjects which articles need looking at. Grutness|hello? 05:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not noticing this comment until now, I just counted them: 1406 unsorted stubs. Alai 05:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to congratulate the group for having come to the point where there are categories into which almost all of the general-stubs can go. I've been sorting this evening (my time) for a bit and finding that a slim minority of general-stubs are not currently sortable based on present categories, which is about where we want it to be; based on present trends I think the final stabilized size of the category might be somewhere between 100 and 200. Courtland 04:57, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC) P.S. I just did a count by pages and found 1,520 general stubs; I've noticed stubs coming in occasionally while I've been sorting.

New stub category: digi-stub

As I was categorizing some stubs, I came across a digimon stub and came to the shocking realization that we don't seem to have a digimon stub category. Considering the insane number of articles on obscure digimons, shouldn't we have one? DaveTheRed 03:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most of the debate on new stubs is now on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria - suggest it there - it sounds like it might be a good idea (either that or change the wording on the Pokemon stub to cope with both). Grutness|hello? 05:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stub redirect to Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub up for deletion

see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#February_7

Courtland 05:49, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

User stubs?

I was somewhat bemused to notice several user pages (and a couple of User_talk: pages, too) tagged as stubs. Should there be a stub category for them? Ought we just to ignore them? Alai 08:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Every User page that I've seen the stub tag on has been done mostly as a joke. They could be ignored, although they do add a small number of extra pages to an already-too-large category. Another choice would be to create a new user-stub that looks exactly like template:stub, but would not include the category:stub. That would also make sure that those user pages would never show up under "Special:What links here" for the stub template. On the other hand, I am not sure that I want to be advocating the creation of any joke stub templates (like the recently deleted template:cow stub. BlankVerse ∅ 12:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jokes that include categories or templates used on real articles should not be found on user pages. We might suggest to folks who really think it's just too funny to avoid that they use "subst:" with the template and then delete the category reference. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. Note that some of these are not joke pages - some users have created template articles on subpages of their user pages (User:RobinPatterson is one such I know of) - personally, I have no problem with these having the stub template on (there are probably less than half a dozen of them in all).
According to Category:Stub there's 28 of them; my User page was on there until I tracked down where there was a stub lodged in some conversation text, so there might be several that are there by accident rather than design. Courtland 00:42, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Category:People stubs is in desparate need of help

Category:People stubs may actually be larger than Category:Stub now. (I haven't countered the pages, but it's enormous.) I've just been working on it a little bit and it is becoming increasingly obvious that emergency rescue efforts are needed.

With the addition of Template:US-bio-stub and Template:UK-bio-stub, the vast majority of stubs with generic bio-stubs can now be given more specific categories. (So if you're bored or looking for something really easy to sort, you might work on Category:People stubs.) When sorting generic stubs, please use the most specific bio-stub subcategory you can. (If you can't find one that fits, you might consider whether a new subcategory would be useful!)

We should probably also be careful about Category:Politician stubs, which seems to be the end location of a huge number of bio-stubs. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm going to go ahead and create Template:US-politician-stub and Template:UK-politician-stub to help with that last comment. Note that the most difficult part of this sorting is that once you have been typing "US-" and "UK-" for a while, it is very easily to mistype one for the other! -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary and Stubbing

Stubs I've found that make sense to move to Wiktionary I've been adding the "move to Wiktionary" message to but leaving the stub message in place. I'm tempted to remove removing the stub messages, as the article will be listed in the "move to Wiktionary" category, where pretty much most things are stubs. What do you think?

Courtland 03:57, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Bluemoose suggested a "phrase-stub" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#phrase-stub to cover a lot of these. Some of them will fit into the current stub categories, but a word/phrase-related stub muight be worthwhile. Grutness|hello?

Africa-geo-stub

I'm going to have a look at the Africa-geo-stubs, see if there's any way of splitting it up a bit. There are about 700 Africa-geo-stubs, plus over 400 South Africa-stubs (many of which are geo-stubs). At the very least I'd like to create SA-geo-stub, and hopefully there will be one or two other African countries with enough geo-stubs for a separate category. Grutness|hello? 05:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please be sure and tell us over at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board when you do so. And thanks to Grutness for dropping us a note before. You are all doing a great job! Cheers, BanyanTree 06:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Will do. And thanks for the thumbs up :) Could take a few days - it means going through all the Africa-geo-stubs to work out which countries are heavily represented. Grutness|hello?

Categories vs templates

I've spoken with a developer, Jamesday, who said that large categories are a problem. I also asked him about the 100 minimum count for categories, and he replied there was no minimum, and that 100 articles was above his maximum target. I'm not sure why a 100 article minimum was suggested, but it doesn't seem to be related to server or performance issues, as I originally believed. According to Jamesday, it's better to have many stub templates that house a smaller number of articles per category than having large categories, especially one as huge as Category:Stub. Personally, I would create/encourage/approve any stub that can help split up a large category or make stub sorting easier. Thought I'd share. --jag123 09:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The goal of the 100 minimum was to discourage creation of frivolous stub categories. There's not much point in a category that will never contain more than half a dozen articles! Personally, I support a much lower minimum and I agree that "as specific as possible" is more useful to people who might want to expand stubs. (I would say that 40 or 50 is plenty. Less than that may be appropriate if there is an interest in expanding them, particularly if there's an associated WikiProject.)
Does breaking categories into 200-article pages not decrease the effect on the server? I thought that was the whole point of that particular innovation. (The problem is that it currently looks like that was precisely what it did, so it has actually encouraged the use of larger and larger categories. If this is seriously a problem, then we need to have, first, more than one developer telling us about the problem—because we're talking about serious changes needed here—and second, we need to rethink the entire category system. Though I begin to wonder why we even bother having categories if they can't have more than 100 articles.)-Aranel ("Sarah") 14:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've personally used the argument of the 100 minimum to discourage creation of frivolous stub categories because it had been listed on the creation page that there be a 100 minimum. Someone changed the limit from 10 to 100 (on stub cat creation guidelines) at the end of January and never explained why, but for some reason I assumed it was because of a technical reason. I've argued that such a high limit be maintained mainly because I sincerely believed it decreased performance issues. This minimum was usually strongly contested, so it's not like there was a community consensus regarding this number, which is why I made the above post.
There is no need to rethink anything or to seriously change anything. If the project wants to maintain a 100 article minimum, then great, but if the 100 minimum is based on arguments I've previously made, or the edit to the stub category creation guideline, then it should definitely be reconsidered. It seems the 100 minimum came out of nowhere and was perpetuated for no real reason. --jag123 20:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What I meant by massive rethinking was that currently, there is a tendency to avoid categories in general that are overly specific. (For example, we tend to get only as specific as a nationality plus a basic job, e.g. "American physicists", but not "American theoretical physicists" or "American physists of the 19th century".) There is a notion floating around that it would be even better to apply more general labels ("American people" and "physicists", say) if we could somehow find the intersection fo the two categories. This depends upon the notion that there is nothing wrong with, say, one category for all American people. If it is the case that categories with hundreds of members are harmful, then we will need to rethink this. (The current understanding in general seems to be that the only reason we use specific categories like "American physicists" is because we currently lack the technical ability to view the intersection of two categories.) '
It would certainly make life easier at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion if we know what, because of technical issues, would be an ideal range for categories (or even if there is such a range).
There have been discussions of the 100 article limit, but I'm having trouble locating them at the moment. I found some under "range of article count". I think we're tending to move away from the 100 limit, though. In my opinion, the ideal stub category—speaking practically with no regard for technical concerns—should fit onto one or maybe two pages.-Aranel ("Sarah") 22:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Archive_9&oldid=11150602"