Archives |
---|
Archives |
---|
Threads older than 180 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
Interpreter stubs
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_12#Category:Chinese_interpreter_stubs. 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).
China stub templates
Howdy all - I've been out of it for a while and just started re-sorting stubs per project guidelines. I came across Yanzhou (ancient China) and tried to use {{China-geo-stub}} on it. When I went to preview the edit, I saw a message above the usual "This is a ___ stub" text which read thusly: "The stub template {{China-geo-stub}} is deprecated. Please use {{PRChina-geo-stub}}, {{HongKong-geo-stub}}, {{Macau-geo-stub}}, or {{Taiwan-geo-stub}} instead."
I ended up sorting it into {{Asia-geo-stub}}, but I wonder why there doesn't seem to be a geo stub type for a region which, at the time, was not the PRC or any of those other current political entities. (I did hunt through the list of stub types, btw.) I don't necessarily want to propose such a type, but I would welcome any explanation of the rationale for the current "deprecation". Thanks! Pegship (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's borne a "deprecated" message of one kind or another for over eight years. The user who did that, Alai (talk · contribs), hasn't been around for over six. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Archiving proposals
Is there a way to archive old proposals that were already accepted and created?
I currently see proposals from 2013-2015 and some were accepted but not created, while others were created. This would help clean out the backlog of proposals. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333: I was just thinking about how to do this earlier today, heh. Yeah, it needs some sort of archiving function along the lines of AFD -- shouldn't be too hard to do it manually, but longer-term would ideal to have somebody get a bot to do it once they're all closed. I know I certainly don't have the proficiency to do that; if you don't either, perhaps we should shoot a message over to Wikipedia:Bot requests? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 23:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Buttons to Push Buttons: Yes, i think a bot would be good. I've also seen you've removed months in the Stub requests. Shouldn't they be archived before they are removed? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @MrLinkinPark333: Yeah I got tired of how sluggish the proposals page had gotten, so got to sorting out some open months. You're right, I should have archived properly, sorry! Getting started on that now. The main issue there is that archiving had completely fallen by the wayside even before the backlog... As of the time of writing (though soon to be updated), Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2010(!), and there's been none since August of that year. I can fill out some basic structure but don't really have time or energy to do the summaries as were customary on those old ones, at least for the moment. Still, it's a start, and I'll get to that now. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 00:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Buttons to Push Buttons: Yes, i think a bot would be good. I've also seen you've removed months in the Stub requests. Shouldn't they be archived before they are removed? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Can I help in any way? I used to do this back in the day. (Before 2011, obviously...) Pegship (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Pegship: Please do, if you have the time! I'd really appreciate it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Why does this process still exist?
Can anyone tell me why we still have this process? Looking at the current (lengthy) page, there have only been a handful of proposals over the last few months. Most of these have come from the same users who then support their own action after the set amount of days have elapsed. I've never used this page, I just go ahead and create stub templates and categories as I see fit. The current WP:CFD process now takes care of stub categories if they're not needed too, so this seems to be WP:BURO. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I take it you mean the proposal process (rather than the stub sorting project as a whole). What you're seeing is those proposals not yet archived, and is therefore only a part of the total number proposed. The current CFD process is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - this page is the fence at the top. Which is better - to say "no, this stub type runs contrary to needs for these reasons", or "good idea, but better if you tweak it to do this", or to have someone create a stub type, add the template to a couple of hundred articles, have it go through a CFD process, and then have to remove those couple of hundred templates additions? Which takes longer? Which uses up editor energy better spent on improving articles? As to just going ahead and making templates and categories, I hope you have read all that page, especially such points as "Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces", "One must be especially careful when being bold with templates", and "Creating new categories or reorganizing the category structure may come to affect many pages." WP:BOLD relates primarily to article edits, as is stressed throughout that page (indeed at one time "be bold" applied only to articles). Grutness...wha? 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is also a second reason for proposing and getting clearance for stub templates. This project is for stub sorting. In order to sort stubs, we need to know what stub types are available to sort articles into. For that reason, we maintain a list of new stub proposals, so that stub sorters know what template tools are available to them. If people create new stub types without going through that process, how are stub sorters to know how to sort? At least many of the stub types you have created seem to be sensible ones, that don't require us to second-guess what an individual editor might have decided, but where are your new stub types listed? And what of editors who just create new stub types without reference to the naming requirements for stub templates? A lot of the time, we only notice them by chance - there's no way we can sort stubs working on the offchance that someone else hasn't created a different stub type. Without some solid attempt at codifying stub types and listing them as they are created, the whole stub sorting process becomes a shambles. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, to clarify, I mean the proposal process. I've not bothered to read all the pages that you mention, and have no intention to do so. This is an outdated chocolate fireguard of a process, run by a clandestine clique. "The fence at the top" comment is quite laughable. "Oh no! Someone created a template out of process!" Oh the humanity. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- "All the pages I mentioned" listed: WP:BOLD. And it's quite obvious you've not read it. Read it. ALL of it.
- As for the ambulance at the top of the cliff, it works. Try "Oh no! Someone created a template out of process! They've added it to 275 articles. We've got editors in half a dozen wikiprojects up in arms about it, complaining that it affects their work! They'll just have to wait and fume while the deletion process goes through." Try "Why aren't you stub sorters sorting things properly? There are a whole host of templates you're not using? What do you mean you didn't know they existed?" Try "Why are these templates named differently to others? It makes trying to add stubs to an article complete guesswork when it comes to template names!"
- Other than the reasons I've mentioned earlier which - rather than debating - you've simply decided to mock, the proposal process allows input from respective wikiprojects on what templates they do and don't have a use for. WP:WSS frequently acts as a liaison between different wikiprojects working in related areas - when new stub types are proposed that affect particular projects, they are frequently contacted for input on any new stub types. Far from being a "clique", we try to involve as many groups as possible in the process. Creating stub types out of process makes the creator a clique of one, and creates a lot of work for a whole host of editors across numerous wikiprojects (did you ask for input from relevant wikiprojects before making your new templates? Did you add the new templates you made to the template lists of the wikiprojects that would most likely use them? If not, why not?).
- And even if you - as an experienced editor - know enough to respect these precautions, what about newbie editors? Will they know enough to follow the same procedures? If you think they would, you should see some of the stub types that have had to be deleted, especially the hundreds of useless, conflicting, and malformed types which were made before the proposal process was set up. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, to clarify, I mean the proposal process. I've not bothered to read all the pages that you mention, and have no intention to do so. This is an outdated chocolate fireguard of a process, run by a clandestine clique. "The fence at the top" comment is quite laughable. "Oh no! Someone created a template out of process!" Oh the humanity. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- The proposal process currently consists of User:Buttons to Push Buttons proposing something, then a few days later creating it. Why do I need to get the approval of some self-appointed busy-bodies to create anything (or wait five days for the pleasure)? There's no such vetting on categories or articles. Did I add the templates to the template lists? Of course not - what a waste of time. If it's that important, get a bot to do it. I suspect many newbies have been scared off by this Kafkaesque way of working here and simply don't bother. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'm not sure where Lugnuts is gettting the idea that WPSS is a clique. The activity among stub sorters has ebbed and flowed over the years and it may not currently be high. But the process is useful. There might be a way to automate some of the functions of stub sorting, though I'm pretty sure that if the list could be updated that way someone would have thought of it. I've been sorting since 2009 and heard discussion, tales of woe, suggestions, implementations, etc. etc. and the vast majority of it has been in good faith.
-
-
-
- It sounds to me, Lugnuts, as though you prefer not to use the system as currently implemented, but neither do you wish to work within the system to change it. (If you truly want it to change, you should refrain from using words like "busy-bodies", "laughable", "Kafkaesque", "fence at the top", and "chocolate fireguard".) If you intend to proceed with creating templates and sorting stub srticles without the support of WPSS, why come here to pick an argument? Pegship (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Peg, I don't have an issue with stub-sorting, it's the out-dated pointless proposal process that needs scrapping. And note the "fence at the top comment" wasn't mine - I was quoting the self-appointed chief's reply. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds to me, Lugnuts, as though you prefer not to use the system as currently implemented, but neither do you wish to work within the system to change it. (If you truly want it to change, you should refrain from using words like "busy-bodies", "laughable", "Kafkaesque", "fence at the top", and "chocolate fireguard".) If you intend to proceed with creating templates and sorting stub srticles without the support of WPSS, why come here to pick an argument? Pegship (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- This weird-ass desire to assign some self-serving motive to me is bizarre but hey, whatever. Wanna know why I've made use of the proposals section? Because that's what the instructions say. Now, is this process byzantine and outdated? Yeah, I would absolutely agree. It's a relic of a bygone era where Wikipedia was active enough to justify it. Go look at how many submissions we had in 2008-10: there was more than enough activity to justify a submissions process which saw ample input and had enough submissions to justify oversight. Those times have changed, and this has limited use now; I would support a proposal to drastically pare back the scope of the proposals page.
- So why did I take part in it? Because I believe some level of oversight & tracking is important. Because I hadn't edited regularly in a few years, and felt neither active nor involved enough to offer an alternative. And because I didn't feel bold enough to unilaterally ignore the conventions -- for an inexperienced editor (in recent years, at least) to do that felt potentially unconstructive and disruptive. I didn't think my doing so would be in the best interests of the project. That's all. In the meantime, I posted because I didn't want to create something on just my say-so. And if there was no response, then at least there's some record of where and why I'd created something. Not clear on how the lack of other active editors in this area is my fault, though, both with regards to responses to my submissions and the lack of other submissions to put mine in perspective (seriously, 7 suggestions in the past 6 weeks is not excessive). Posting my suggestions in an open forum was how I felt my contributions to the project would be best served. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- And I suspect people see the "what the instructions say", think to hell with waiting five days, and go ahead and ignore it completely. Five days?! What a joke. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, and more bluntly: what exactly do you want to happen here? You keep pointing out your dissatisfaction with the process - but then make it clear you're not going to follow it, anyway. Why not just go about your business and leave off grousing here? Pegship (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- And I suspect people see the "what the instructions say", think to hell with waiting five days, and go ahead and ignore it completely. Five days?! What a joke. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have not looked at the proposals for ages. Loong time really. I guess there is not much traffic because there is not that much new stub categories anyway. We would hardly ever get this project up and running for this long without some organisation and normalisation. And I presume it needs it to keep going without suffering a noise induced heat death. "Anyone can edit" and "not a bureaucracy" does not mean to kill all and any organization nor to have no process but engaging in edit wars. - Nabla (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Palestine stubs
Please note that Category:Palestine stubs and its subcat Category:Palestine geography stubs are up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 22#Palestine, as part of a wider nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at Idea Lab
A discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Definition_of_a_stub_and_automatic_removal_of_stub_templates includes a proposal to distinguish stubs and non-stubs by size, and may be of interest. PamD 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)