Misplaced Pages

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

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 agree

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. Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 /_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 :)

Reverse chronological order

Many parts of wikipedia use a reverse chronological order: the most recent edits at the top of the page, and the older contributions at the bottom. Would it be an idea to use that on WP:WSS/P as well? After all, the top of the page is the first thing of the page that many people see. I believe it would stimulate outsider input if they could immediately see where to propose a new stub type. I also don't think it's very convenient to have to scroll through the entire page, or to have to sift through the content box, for ongoing discussions. Many of the discussions in the top of the page (the proposals from October, November and early December have already come to an end, so I don't see why they should clutter up the page this way. What pushed me to come to this proposal/suggestion is the recent reformatting of Proposed mergers, which has gone from an alphabetical order to a reverse chronological order. Aecis 00:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC) PS. I'm prepared to do the reformatting myself when I'm less busy in real life, but I feel that we might need to go through a request for page protection during the course of the reformatting

I think it doesn't really matter, if the page is archived regularly and thus kept at a moderate size. Conscious 18:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That leaves the issue of how the page will look in between archiving sessions. You will probably agree with me that the page was barely readable prior to the current round of archiving. I believe that a reverse chronological order can prevent such a mess, instead of having to clean up after it. Aecis 18:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

wouldnt it make archiving more fiddly or will that become reverse order too? BL kiss the lizard 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would it become any more fiddly? It would simply be done from the bottom up, instead of from the top down. In other words: anything that is archived is already on the bottom of the page and out of sight. Aecis 22:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

say youve got the following to archive:

Dec 1
Dec 2
Dec 3

with the archives the same way round as the project page youd simply copy and paste the lot in one go. but if the project page is

Dec 3
Dec 2
Dec 1

and all the sections on those days are also newest at the top, youd have to reorder everything as you went when archiving. seems fiddlier to me. BL kiss the lizard 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If it indeed does make archiving more fiddly, I don't think it should matter. After all, WP:WSS/P doesn't exist for the sake of archiving, but for the sake of proposal and discussion. And archiving could also be done in reverse order. Aecis 09:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverse chronological order makes sense to me. Can we do Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries at the same time? (Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion is already rev-chron.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Doing so for WP:WSS/D would probably be an especially good idea, as things get very little input there and it tends to be quite long. --Mairi 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I will be missing the time I used to spend scrolling down the page, but I think I will get over it, so I would support the proposal. I guess it will make archiving a bit more fiddly, but I think it's worth it.--Carabinieri 21:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. As suggested by Aecis, the archiving can simply be done reverse order as well. It should be done for WP:WSS/D as well. --Valentinian 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support reverse order, and at Discoveries. Much more user-friendly.--Mais oui! 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So there is a consensus for reformatting the page? If so, I will request page protection for the duration of the reformatting. Aecis 12:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Assuming we're going forward with this (and I think we ought to unless someone says otherwise shortly), I've written a script that'll reverse the sections, so no one has to do it by hand. The output from it (using a fairly recent version of WP:WSS/P) is in my sandbox. Maybe this'll spur us on to actually implementing this :) Mairi 06:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When are you able to run that program? I think we can now take the final step and get the reformatting done. I don't think we need to go through RPP for this. Aecis 00:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If we want to get it done tonight, I could run it anytime in the next hour or 0300 - 0700 UTC. (The latter time slot also works tomorrow too.) I don't see any need to thru RFPP, it shouldn't be protected for long... Mairi 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be able to assist you in the reformatting, as I'm about to go to bed. It's 1.30 am here now :s Aecis 00:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. I should be able to manage tho. I'll wait til I get another response from anyone (or until tomorrow night), before going ahead with it. Mairi 00:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We've made it all the way to QDB

I just saw the following quote on the internet :
<jkl> "This pornography-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it."
<jkl> That's the worst pickup line ever.
-:)

Aecis 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsortable stub category

See Talk:David Hassinger. Two issues:

1. If anyone knows a better stub flag for this than bio-stub, obviously that would be good. But engineer-stub isn't right IMO, and I can't find a better one.

2. Is there a call for an unsortable category? One for articles that would otherwise go into categories like people stubs, as they are in a subject area for which there are too few stubs to justify a stub category? Depending on the answer to (1) above, this may be a case in point. If it stays in people stubs it will probably waste a lot of people's time. Andrewa 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How about {{music-bio-stub}}?--Carabinieri 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the current tag ({{music-producer-stub}}) is very appropriate, but otherwise Carabinieri's suggestion would be good. And what about {{US-bio-stub}}? Aecis 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, we've solved question 1 well IMO. I'll leave question 2 as a suggestion. It's just a matter of whether this might, overall, reduce the average amount of time that needs to be spent on a stub before it becomes a proper article, which is after all the goal! The members of the project (which IMO does sterling service just BTW) are in a much better position to comment on this than I am. Andrewa 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

there are an estimated 200000+ stubs, and only a few days ago Category:Stubs was completely empty. so obviously they can all be sorted. Category:Stubs is the only place needed for unsortable stubs. if we make a seperate Category:Unsortable stubs then lazy people will simply put things in there rather than sort them further and itll simply become a new Category:Stubs BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Page reversed

As per the above discussion, I've gone ahead and reversed the order of this page. I'll hold off on reversing WP:WSS/D until there's more feedback on the new order. Mairi 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My double-stubbing based proposals...

I hope I'm not spamming the page excessively with these; if it's any comfort, there's only about another five of those that meet the basic criteria I've been using, and that look basically sensible. After that, I'll upload the remainder of the raw data, if people want to check if some of the overlaps of size < 60 are 'under-tagged', which is I suspect extremely likely. Alai 03:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

They're all perfectly logical ideas for splits, and in almost all cases it makes perfect sense to do them. So I've certainly no objection. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet more lists of things

I'm done with the trawl through the over-threshold double-stubbings of oversized categories: the complete list is here, if anyone wants to review the data, or propose any of the ones that I skipped. I've also just compiled a secondary list, also where one potential parent is oversized, but where the overlap is <60 (but >=30). In many of these cases I'd imagine that there's "under-double-stubbing" and some of these will actually be viable, should anyone wish to propose these semi-speculatively, or do a more accurate count. Alai 03:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I'll grant that we're often behind the game on archiving this page, but I'd prefer if we could avoid archiving proposals that aren't "finalised": in particular, proposals that are "approved", but not yet created. Unless we flag those in some other fashion. Otherwise, chances are the creation queue will get even more ad hoc than it is at present... Alai 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

HEY FOLKS-How about an Obvious Need

In that it is frequently easier to guess a related category name or syntax (exact name and capitalization, etc.) it would be most helpful if category pages were annoted with a uplink to the parent. It would certainly help those of us most occupied adding expansion materials to correctly concurrently add the correct categories.

• So I am suggesting henceforth, if you are in this project, you start editing pages to have a notation such as this (just added) to Category:History of Canada:
• Main Article: History of Canada it is a sub-category of: Category:History of North America. The latter took me a few moments to track down, which would have been more productive otherwise (as I'm still seeking yet another (but related) branch in the heirarchy).

I suspect it will greatly help all our tasking! Can't believe this hasn't been thought of before!

• Perhaps someone more knowlegable than I can design a template like the ones that build the nice graphical boxes like the notice boxes WP:Btw. i.e. similar to the graphical appearance given by template:guideline {{guideline|]<br />]}} for this purpose.

Best regards, FrankB 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)