Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting

Active discussions

NOTE: This page is not a forum to suggest the creation of articles. If you wish to create an article on any subject, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there.

Interpreter stubsEdit

See The cat "Chinese interpreter stubs" was deleted, but none of the possible associated actions were taken. I tweaked the stub template but was reluctant to create the new cat. Do feel free to change it further. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing discussionsEdit

Well...despite being told that in other Wiki realms it isn't standard practice for the same person to close a discussion who has an opinion on it, it looks as though there are too few of us stub sorters active right now to follow that guideline. If there's no objection, I will go back to closing discussions on which a consensus has been reached, regardless of whether I've participated in them. If anyone else wants to pitch in, feel free. Cheers, Her Pegship (really?) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll end up doing the same. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 05:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

North American stubsEdit

Has anyone looked at Category:North American protected area stubs? I am not an expert on geography but I question articles included like Riscos de Momostenango in Guatemala which is still listed as being in Central America. The sub-categories Category:Costa Rican protected area stubs and Category:Nicaraguan protected area stubs could cause some wonderment also. Maybe I have just missed something. Otr500 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks as though there was no parent category made for Central American protected area stubs such as Costa Rica or Nicaragua. Then again, someone has also placed Category:Central America geography stubs as a sub-cat of Category:North America geography stubs, so it's not you that's missing something. It looks as though some rearranging of parent- and sub-cats is in order, and the creation of Category:Central American protected area stubs as a parent? Her Pegship (really?) 19:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Technically, Central America is regarded by geographers as being part of North America, but in common usage it's separate, so while its officially right it could cause a few raised eyebrows. I'd certainly be happy with a separate category per Peg. Grutness...wha? 03:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

proposing deletion of template (and possibly category)Edit

Hi all - I'm going to head over to wherever these things are now deleted (WP:CFD?) to propose the deletion of {{Korea-museum-stub}}. We have separate templates for both North and South Korea, and understandably no articles now use the combined template. I'm also wondering what others think about deleting Category:Korean museum stubs - it simply a South Korean subcat and six articles on North Korean museums, which could easily be moved back into the (not overpopulated) Asian parent. Grutness...wha? 10:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Template:Lepidoptera-stub is a non-standardised stub template (doesn't use {{asbox}}) and there is only one page in the category. However, it has 3 subcats. The doc at Category:Insect stubs doesn't mention this category or template, rather it says "for order Lepidoptera, please see the numerous tags available under: Category:Butterfly stubs, Category:Moth stubs". Should this template be deleted? SD0001 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that Category:Lepidoptera stubs might be worth keeping, but once the single page Coelolepida is given {{moth-stub}} instead, the template can go. The cat page could be given a notice asking people to use the most relevant subcategory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Buddhist mythology stubsEdit

I've just found Category:Buddhist mythology stubs and the associated {{Buddhist-myth-stub}}, but cannot find where this was either proposed or approved. Certainly there's nothing at WP:WSS/P. They were created by Invokingvajras (talk · contribs). The category is inside itself, which is very bad practice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The template was approved in August. Her Pegship (really?) 21:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. How did I not spot that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
That happens to me sometimes when I check what links to the category but not to the template. Can the category be fixed?? Her Pegship (really?) 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan politicsEdit

Trying to stub-sort 2019 Azadi march I wanted a stub-type for "Pakistan politics". There is none, but Category:Asia politics stubs is a parent-only category.

I've never really got my head around creating new stub templates etc - could someone suggest what to do in this situation, where a lot of "Asia politics" doesn't seem to have an appropriate stub template? Thanks. Several other countries, such as India and China also seem to be missing. PamD 14:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a stub template for a different country that does what you intend (apart from being the wrong country)? We could use that as a basis for a Pakistan one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Most of the Foo politics stubs categories are parents to Foo political party stubs and Foo politician stubs; Category:Pakistan politics stubs would contain those two sub-cats, though I'm not sure whether Category:Pakistan politics stubs would contain many stub articles in and of itself. The other Foo politics stubs cats have their own templates, so maybe you should propose {{Pakistan-poli-stub}} and Category:Pakistan politics stubs both on the Proposals page. tl;dr I suggest you use {{Pakistan-stub}} until a political stub type is discussed on Proposals. Her Pegship (really?) 00:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uncategorized stubEdit

So why do we need this? I just got in to a silly editing tête-à-tête with Bearcat over why a big yellow warning banner is needed on a page to complain it has not been added to any categories even though it literally was in a category. And it was in a category that was already a child category of where I stuck it to get rid of this banner. Here is the example article: Newspaper bag. — xaosflux Talk 00:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Stub categories do not make an article properly categorized by themselves. Even if it has 75,000 stub templates on it, an article is still uncategorized if it does not have at least one direct category declaration being made on the page itself. There are several reasons for this:
  1. Stub categories group articles by maintenance status, not by a characteristic of the topic. They're not meant for end user browsing, but to attract the internal attention of editors who might be inclined to work on improving the articles. So a regular reader who isn't involved in content creation, and is just using Wikipedia as an information resource, will not find the article in the correct or expected places if it isn't in any real content categories, because reader browsing isn't what stub categories are for.
  2. Stub templates get removed from articles when they've been expanded beyond stub length, which makes them temporary. An article is still uncategorized if it is not included in any permanent categories that will not be removed from the article upon a change in its maintenance status, because pages have to stay categorized.
  3. It is technologically impossible for our uncategorized-article detection tools to determine that a page has categories that are being artificially transcluded by templates — the tools can only detect whether a page has direct category declarations on it or not. So if an article were to be exempted from getting tagged as uncategorized on the basis of stub categories, then the tools would pick that page up again, and it would be impossible to clear it off the list at all if we weren't allowed to tag it. But the people who work with the uncategorized tools are not obliged to put up with permanent clutter that pollutes the list and makes it harder to detect other uncategorized pages — we have to be able to clear the list literally right down to zero, and cannot be expected to leave some articles lingering on the list just because you think direct category declarations aren't important. One of the reasons for this is that the tools have limits on how many pages they're capable of detecting — so if stub-templated but otherwise uncategorized pages were left on the list because the stub template counted as categorization, then those pages would eventually crowd out the pages that did need to be tagged, leaving them completely undetectable because there were more stub-templated pages than the tool's upper count limit.
So for all of those reasons, an article is not deemed to be categorized, or exempted from having to have the uncategorized tag on it, until it contains one or more direct declarations of non-stub end user content categories. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As pages with a stub template are literally actually in a category, at the very least that template is inaccurate and misleading. It isn't like it is in a hidden category either. A reader reading that page sees literally a warning banner that this page is not in a category, immediately followed by a line that says as in this example Categories: Newspaper stubs - an actual category that is browsable and otherwise incorporated in to our category system. — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If stub cats were not meant to be topical, they should be hidden and not incorporated right in to the topical category system - at the very least they are dual-purpose. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

But why do we have the {{uncategorised stub}} template? An uncategorised stub article needs {{stub}}, which will be replaced by a {{Foo-stub}} once stub-sorted, and {{uncategorised}}. There seems no point in this particular template. PamD 00:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I've questioned whether "uncategorized stub" and "uncategorized" actually needed to be two separate templates in the past as well — but the point that was raised in response to my concerns was exactly what's happening here: some people don't realize that artificially transcluded stub categories don't count as "categorization" for the purposes of rendering a page "properly categorized", and thus simply remove the "uncategorized" template on the basis of the stub category. I don't see why a merged template couldn't just include wording about stub templates, but it basically amounts to "they were created that way and nobody's tackled the job of trying to merge them before". That said, the core issue that was being raised here had less to do with why "uncategorized" and "uncategorized stub" are two separate templates, and more to do with an assertion that stub-templated but otherwise uncategorized pages don't need any form of uncategorized template tagging at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:uncategorised has the same issue above, it tells readers this page is in no categories, when it very well may be if it were used like this. — xaosflux Talk 00:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If stub cats were not meant to be topical, they should be hidden and not incorporated right in to the topical category system - at the very least they are dual-purpose. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, even if an article has 27,000 stub templates on it, it is still uncategorized if it does not also have at least one direct declaration of an end-user content category on it. I've already explained several of the substantial and important reasons why this is the case — the most important one being that if pages are left untagged just because of stub templates alone, an essential maintenance tool will be broken because it is technologically impossible to make that tool detect categories that are artificially transcluded by templates. The tools work by looking for the presence or absence of actual direct category declarations on a page, and have no way to detect that a page is "categorized" by templates importing category transclusions — so if we ignored stub-templated pages, the uncategorized-page detection tools would get kludged up by untaggable pages that we weren't allowed to clear. That would crowd out the pages that did have to be addressed, thus having the effect of breaking the tools, and making it impossible to ever locate uncategorized pages at all anymore. So whether you agree with the need or not, the categorization project has to be able to clear stub-templated but otherwise uncategorized pages off the uncategorized page detection tools. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a bit of law of the instrument argument there, but more importantly this doesn't address my reader-facing point at all. — xaosflux Talk 01:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like I'm not the first person to see this problem: Template_talk:Uncategorized_stub#Change_wording?. — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, it's not "law of the instrument" in the sense that article describes — it's not an attempt to make a tool fit a task it isn't designed for, it's a matter of a tool that is designed for the task becoming unusable. Secondly, the issue you raised here wasn't with the wording of the uncategorized-stub template, it was with the idea that stubs need any template at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue I'm raising is that a reader-facing caution banner is on an article saying there are no categories, and we place that immediately above a reader-facing line that says the page is in a category. — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The difference between the two templates isn't relevant to that issue, because which template gets used doesn't change anything about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As for this discussion, I made a single edit at [1]. Does this work? --Izno (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: not really. See my note at the TfD too, but basically I think we look like we don't know how to mark up a page when we have a line that says this page isn't in categories followed by a line that says here are the categories. If "stub categories" are not meant for readers, they should be hidden categories.... — xaosflux Talk 19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
You've now said that stub cats should be hidden three times in this discussion - the first two were both at 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC). There has been previous discussion of the matter, see for example Category talk:Stubs#Proposal: Stub categories should be hidden. The matter was also referred to at Oxford yesterday by myself, with Iridescent (talk · contribs), RexxS (talk · contribs) and Thryduulf (talk · contribs) listening. The visibility of stub cats encourages people who have improved one article to seek out more of the same sort of thing with a view to also improving those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the discussion above, I have nominated Template:Uncategorized and Template:Uncategorized stub for TFM. Feel free to see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 17#Template:Uncategorized. --Izno (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • A thought: should stub categories be hidden? That would solve the contradiction between what the "Uncategorised" template displays and the reality that the stub is in a category, albeit a category of a specific type which we don't count as a category when describing it as uncategorised. If they are truly only intended for the eyes of editors, perhaps we should avoid confusion by hiding them from the reader. They would still function, and the stub would still display its message that "This foo related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", but there would be less confusion. Perhaps? PamD 18:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to the distinction between "maintenance" categories and "content" categories, the stub categories are certainly the only type of maintenance category that we routinely make visible instead of hiding. Hiding them would make them a little bit tricker for editors who wanted to work with them to find — but it is still possible, it's just that some "novice" users would need a quick bit of education in how to actually do it. I don't see a compelling reason why they would need to be visible rather than hidden, personally — but I am aware that some people might disagree, so it would probably be best to publicize a wider discussion on that matter rather than just deciding to change this immediately. The only other concern I have is that there are over 16,000 stub categories — so making them hidden would take a heck of a lot of work to implement. But I suppose somebody could probably program a bot to automate that if it were decided to go that route, so that's not in and of itself a reason not to. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Stub categories needing attentionEdit a bit over populated. I was going to try and take a crack at the backlog, but I wanted to see how it was filled first.

  • Less than 50 pages = undersized
  • More than 800 pages = oversized

I suggest that the category be split into 4: oversized / no permcats / no stub tag / undersized. Since it just requires a few edits to Template:Stub category, I don't think a full CfD is needed. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As items in this category are already sorted into sections, what would be the advantage of creating sub-categories? Her Pegship (I'm listening) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pegship: to make it easier to track backlogs - all categories starting with "A", "B", etc DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

New bot for consolidating stub templatesEdit

There is now a bot SDZeroBot (talk · contribs) for consolidating multiple stub tags on pages into a single tag, wherever possible. See BRFA and edits. Any feedback on potential expansion is welcome. SD0001 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

New bot task filed: BRFA, for improving specificity of geographic stub tags. SD0001 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Two blank lines?Edit

I haven't read long discussions, but why there is two blank lines, instead of logical one blank line? Extract from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Stub_sorting_methods:

The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § Standard appendices and footers states that any stub tags should be placed at the very bottom of the article, after all other templates and categories. Two blank lines should be left between the first stub tag and whatever precedes it.

--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I was once told (like, ten years ago) that certain bots and scripts expect two. I've not yet found out which bots and scripts those are. Certainly nobody's ever complained when I have used only one blank line. What I generally do is: if there are no blank lines, I add one; if there are three or more, I reduce them to two; if there is either one or two, I leave it alone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of tracking category by Template:Parent-only stub categoryEdit

Noting that I have edited Template:Parent-only stub category so that it uses Category:Stub categories needing attention for tracking parent-only stub cats with a |newstub= parameter (sortkey N) and ones without a |category= parameter (sortkey Q). Until now, the same tracking was being done via hidden links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Tracker for parent stub categories with stub tag and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Tracker for stub categories with no permcats. The hidden links have been retained for now, but can be removed later.

Something similar was done for {{Stub category}} (which also historically used to use hidden links) in 2011 (diff) SD0001 (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Now removed the hidden links and updated the documentation. SD0001 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Template for nominating stub templates at CfDEdit

Noted in (somewhat) more detail at WT:CFD but I created {{sfd-t2}} and {{sfr-t2}} for stub template nomination discussions, thought folks here might be interested. Also added a |stub=yes parameter to {{cfd-notify}} that changes some of the messages and links so this it be used for stub template nomination notifications. ~ Amory (utc) 16:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 17:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Stub sorting".