Ard Wiki talk:Simple Stub Project/Archive 1

Geography stub type

Wouldn't it be useful to have a stub type 'geography' also? JurgenG (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing about different stub types has not gained community consensus yet, so it is advisable to wait a while before working on it. Chenzw  Talk  11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to add the header. As Chenzw notes, I am currently waiting for a brief period of time, to allow community input before creating general stub types. Synergy (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made the geo-stub anyway. - tholly --Turnip-- 17:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


I just deleted one of your stubs, since consensus hadn't been reached about using them or not. Could you keep them in the userspace until we've reached a decision? Or isn't it possible to keep templates in a userspace. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not one of my stubs. I have yet to create one. If you wish to weigh in, then please do so. If no one has voiced general concern in which the additions of more stubs are not needed, then I will in fact be taking silence as consent. This is not a huge change. As the wiki grows, further categorization is often needed. This projects aim is to assess when that is, and which ones are to be created. Stubs created before this projects inception are beyond my control. If I have to create them in my userspace for now, then so be it. Synergy 06:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Restored and replied to your message on my talk page. Just to inform that you're not allowed to use them in articles until this wikiproject is official though, lots of discussions have been held about categorical stubs. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Then you might as well delete it again. Theres no point in keeping it around if you are going to dictate communities consensus before it arrives. Unilateral action is nothing to play with. Why keep a template if it isn't allowed to be used? Synergy 06:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Because it could be allowed to be used :P. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Are the stubs going to be called Subject-stub or Subject-Stub? At the moment it's a mixture. - tholly --Turnip-- 17:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The word stub should be lower case, unless it starts off a sentence. Synergy 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick deletion of stub templates

Currently all stub templates are covered by the deletion policy as quick deletable. Under a combination of previously deleted pages and per RfD on all stub templates, they can be deleted until community consensus changes and overrides the previous RfD and discussions about them. -- Creol(talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sport-stub is being used. Is this covered by a QD tag? - tholly --Turnip-- 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is a consensus to change the result of the RfD (and three or so years of discussions on the topic), all stub templates with the exception of {{stub}} itself are valid for deletion. This does not mean that they will be deleted, but they definitely can. The enforcement of this ruling has some leeway for templates which are already included (commonly, redirecting the template to {{stub}}) but there is always the possiblity that someone may still delete it and just undo the addition of the deleted tag. -- Creol(talk) 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. - tholly --Turnip-- 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request that all such conversations be presented here for uninformed parties. Three year old conversations should hardly weigh in on this. Wiki's change in three years. Synergy 21:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The older discussions do have less weight (and are mainly the ones supporting multiple stubs), but the newer ones are showing no change in consensus and usually end up being 2-4 people discussing the possiblility of change. The discussions are throughout the Simple talk archives the latest being just this month in archive 37.
I likely missed some of the discussions in a two hour search of archives but this should be fairly thorough coverage of the history. -- Creol(talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The help is very much appreciated. I'll review them and try my best to alleviate any concerns raised by the community. Synergy 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleting these stubs is hardly a good idea - without additional stub categories, the incredible number of stubs on this Wiki becomes impossible to sort through, and anyone looking for a certain kind of article to expand has no such luck. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm the user who created the {{sport-stub}} template, and I did so because no user minded the template itself here. The categories for it a now <-- Hidden --> in the template, and for now, I think that the templates (without the categories) of the most basic areas (as I wrote in about the fourth paragraph there), should be allowed. --American Eagle (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to ask that, anyone watching this project page to please consider coming forth and letting us know that you've created a stub, and putting onto the main page under one of the headers. If there is not an appropriate header, please add it in. This way we can keep track of anything already created, as The Rambling Man had asked on Wikipedia:Simple talk. I don't mind anyone correcting spelling or making additions to this project. I only ask that if what you have added gets removed, that you bring the issue to the this talk page so that it can be discussed. Thank you. Synergy 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New stubs

Now that we have Category:Stubs running, there will be a large dump of anywhere from 11k to 22k. Currently only a few are showing up at a time, and this is the perfect time to begin sorting them. So, with this, I am proposing only the most general of stubs types. Only stub types that can fit multiple types of articles. Here is a list:

There are two, currently (the only ones I know of) that should go. These are {{PW-stub}} and {{Comp-Stub}}. I am going to go ahead and create the bio one, and start working. I believe it to be our most needed stub type. Synergy 22:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good for the new ones. I'm going to create {{transport-stub}} as it's my favourite ;)
I also think the deletions are ok.
I'll have a think of some more and add them as and when needed, after proposing them here.
BG7even 23:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I also think {{food}} (or food and drink) should be a good one. Synergy 01:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted {{Video-game-stub}} yet because its being used on well over 200 articles so it just might need to stay. I'd rather hear other opinions before deleting it. Synergy 04:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I could run User:GoblinBot2 to replace it if you wanted, it wouldn't be any trouble. GBot2 is also available for any replacements that need to be done, just drop me a line ;). Cheers, BG7even 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A music stub is also likely needed. Current intersections of Category:Music and Template:stub run up to 1227 crossover hits. (1227 articles somewhere in the cat tree under music have the stub template on them). This number does include many bands which were not tagged during the Bio-stub change due to not having a birth or death category. The number will be affected by further passes to find the remaining bio-stubs although many of these will be cross-overs (Both music and people). --Creol(talk) 08:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


{{Bio-stub}} has replaced some 3300 stub templates so far. Given a bit of complexity in the issue (not people categories under the main Category:People - albums, songs, etc under the bands or artists they apply to, the category needs to be sorted properly, so DEFAULTSORT is needed (or BD), etc.) this one is not a cut and dry simple replacement. Three passes have been run on articles so far to catch the bulk of the people stubs: (all category scans are recursive - ie, the main cat and all subcategories)

  1. Category:People - only dealing with articles with {{Stub}} and {{BD}} already in place.
  2. Category:Births by year - dealing only with the articles which failed the first pass (ie. no BD templates)
  3. Category:Deaths by year - after removing all articles which were checked in the second pass.

All told, 10556 articles were looked at (many duplicates in there as there were only 7800 in Cat:people to start with) and 3305 edits performed. about 36 hours..

Effectively any article with a birth or death year should have been changed if needed. Most of the people should be caught by one of those passes, but there are going to be others (badly categorized, no b/d cats, etc) which will have either be caught randomly or searched for from the main stub category once the other templates trim the numbers down to something more reasonable.

I also modified the template to add "or groups of people" so it includes things like bands, ethnic groups, the Olsen twins (they're are a single article), etc. Categories were added as well, Category:Stub templates is still red, but should get used soon. -- Creol(talk) 13:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A much needed change. Once I have an idea of how many stub types need to be created (basically when we go through whats left, after bio), we can create Category:Stub templates (or whenever is fine) for easy locating. Synergy 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In the early stages of pass 4, I am opening this up for any outside help we can get. This should be the last but hardest stage. Category:people, all pages still using stubs, -category:albums and -category:songs. 1450+ articles that need to be hand verified for the most part. I trimmed it down some and then made it through the "A's" before transfered the remaining list to Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project/People. It is in AWB format so it is easier to import or it can be done by hand. There are a few that slipped in that should not be there (Category:850 Basic English words is part of Cat:English language and ultimately Cat:Germanic people and many albums and songs are still just listed under their artist and not the correct song/album category so they may still be on the list). Have fun. I think I need a little time out from this work.. --Creol(talk) 11:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Hello there all. To tell you guys the truth, I think that Geo-stub is too broad of a category to use on this site. While I do believe that a stub like this should be created for use with all geography-related articles that have been created that don't fall under countries with large numbers of locations, I believe that this stub template needs to have underlings in order to correctly label an article with a correct stub template. I believe that countries such as France, Germany, Great Britian, Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Romania, Spain, and other countries such as those just listed should have their own stub template because otherwise, we will just have a whole lot of pages with a generic geography stub template on them instead of more in depth stub templates. This is just a thought that I had, but I just wanted to say it to let you guys know my thoughts about this. Cheers, Razorflame 00:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now, and only right now, we are using geo-stub. Once it can be determined that there are enough stub articles (such as the {{romania-stub}} which had well over a thousand) to merit one, it will be put to use. This is how it should be for any new stub type. We just don't want to go creating too many, until they are needed. Synergy 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what you are saying is true. I guess that I was jumping the gun a little there, but I was ultimately correct with what I was saying. Eventually, they will be needed, but for now, you are right. They are not needed at the moment (with the exception of romania-stub).
About 5-6 months ago, I created pages for about 75% of all the municipalities of Switzerland (which is over 1,000 municipalities (an estimate)), so I think that maybe we should think about creating a Switzerland stub or something along those lines as I know for a fact that there are quite a few articles that have to do with Switzerland that have been created on here. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Razorflame 01:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How many of these articles are stubs? We'll need an approximation before using it. I figure since you would like it, you can do some digging and see if its justified. Synergy 22:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on...I'll get you an approximation right now. Cheers, Razorflame 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
All right. I counted 1,028 articles that would use the Switzerland stub, and that is just for the pages about Switzerland that have already been created. There are still quite a few more pages that still need creation. Cheers, Razorflame 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Count: 802 articles in Category:Cities of Switzerland transclude {{Stub}}. --Creol(talk) 08:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Earlier today, I created the stub {{Asteroid-stub}} because of the fact that we already have upwards of 1,000 pages created about asteroids so far. I figured that since we already have a huge number of articles about asteroids created on the Simple English Wikipedia that we might as well stub and categorize them in a category for asteroid stubs because it would be of great benefit towards the well-being of the Simple English Wikipedia. Does everyone here agree that this was an appropriate decision? Cheers, Razorflame 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are more than 1,000 asteroid articles? Not sure what to make of that. Wouldn't a less specific category do the job? Such as {{Astronomy-stub}} or similar? (And I really think we need to consider why we have so many asteroid articles!) Soup Dish (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a less specific stub would do the job for other articles, however, because of the fact that we have so many asteroid articles already created, I don't see why we can't have an Asteroid stub template. I can create the astronomy stub right now if you would like. Cheers, Razorflame 22:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Razor:Where are you getting your figures from and how many of these articles are stubs? This is the question I'd ask anyone who is looking to create a new stub type. Furthermore, it would have been better to bring it up here first. This project is to coordinate and approve them, so we don't have dozens of unneeded tags, with cat's that aren't going to be used.
The way that I got my figure from is from looking in all of the asteroid categories that are already made and looking at how many different pages are in each of the categories, and then total them all up. The total was more than 1,000 articles. Yes, I realize that I should have brought it up here first, however, since I didn't remember that we even had this page created (remember, I just started editing again), and therefore, since I thought it was more of a common sense-type thing, and because I figured that it was in high demand, I went ahead and created it. Cheers, Razorflame 22:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
As for the reason why we have so many asteroid stubs, an old user and administrator here on this site used to spend time creating asteroid stubs back when he was still active, and I have taken up creating asteroid stubs as well because they are fun and interesting to create. I do not see any reason to have to think about why we have so many asteroid stubs because as an encyclopedia, it is our job to have the most complete library of articles relating to everything in the world. Cheers, Razorflame 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
To respond to Soup Dish, yes. We would need a main stub type first. In this case, {{science-stub}} (it redirects to {{stub}})would come to mind, then of course {{astronomy-stub}}. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves in this process. Synergy 22:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Count: 804 (of 1754) articles in Category:Asteroids tranclude {{Stub}}. --Creol(talk) 08:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a go to me. My main personal criteria is at least 500 stubs for a new type. Synergy 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Stub categories

Category:Stub categories is now created, and this is where all new stub types will go, so we can keep track of them. Synergy 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


I started this discussion on simple talk but it needs to be talked about here.-- CM16 MLB  23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At the moment we're getting very general stub types, or those linked to many articles. Synergy said it well on ST. The sport stub type serves the purpose; wrestling is considered a sport. It is unneeded at the present time. We can't make exceptions to certain areas, so I agree with the deletion. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
If wrestling was a legitimate sport don't you think ESPN would cover it? Point is ESPN doesn't so it's not seen as a Legit's mock combat. Sport just doesn't fit wrestling enough to be right. Any other ideas?-- CM16 MLB  00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think sport fits close enough. -Djsasso (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to be clearer than I was earlier (which I should have been, but I was busy editing) about the reasons why. This stub didn't strike me as needed because most of our articles are about the people involved. In which case {{Wrestling-bio-stub}} (correlating to the stub) would be used, and would be an extension from both {{Wrestling}} (we'd want to use this one first any how, because it can be used for more than just professional wrestling) and {{Bio-stub}}. I would suggest that semi- exact figures be drawn up when you want a new stub type, and presented here for us to comment on. I went ahead and did some checking and there are only a handful of articles related to Wrestling that are not the subject of a biography. Right now, sports covers it for the time being and any articles in those cats about people need to go into the bio stub cat. Synergy 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sports stub should be used. Wrestling is not a sport, its more entertainment than sport, but it fits, and its better than creating a whole new template for it. Kennedy (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I get what ya mean, Kennedy, but you do know you contradicted your self there? Not a sport but the sport one fits? Maybe create a sports entertainment stub...if not I'll go along with the Sport stub, just want to get all options out there.-- CM16 MLB  17:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who didn't know, there was discussion about this on my talk page before this. Both en and our article says that its a sport. Even if it were just a type of sport, the sport stub would still be used. More importantly, I have no problem with it being recreated once we need it again (such as 500 stub articles not relating to people). Synergy 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get more people to weigh in please, but I'm starting to think to stick with the sports thing, though it doesn't fit.-- CM16 MLB  04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Right now, you don't have a choice but to accept it until the above has been met. Please stop dragging this on. Thank you. Synergy 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, okay.-- CM16 MLB  04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

USA related stub

I would like to propose the template here for a stub template.-- CM16 MLB  04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with this one. We have loads of things that can be fit into this one. Synergy 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that was a nice find CM. Although I did locate one already created ({{US-stub}}). I've made sure it was the same one as en's, and all the iw's are there, as well as created the cat so... lets get some stubs in there. :) Synergy 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I approve the use of this stub because I am pretty sure that we have quite a few articles that could use this stub (at least a couple hundred articles come to mind). Cheers, Razorflame 02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we already had it (since oct 08). I just didn't delete it since I knew we had over 500 stubs, plus the ones I've created. Synergy 11:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)