Wikipedia talk:Stub
Welcome to our website. It is generaly simplier version of wikipedia. You will find there selected articles. Enjoy!
| WikiProject Stub sorting | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| WikiProject Manual of Style | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| WikiProject Help | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| Shortcut: WT:STUB |
|---|
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
|
 Archives (Index) |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
| Threads older than 90 days are archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents |
Andal Ampatuan Sr.
The entry Andal Ampatuan Sr. is inaccurate.
Cory Aquino did not appoint Andal Sr as OIC of Maguindanao in 1986. It was another person, Datu Modi Ampatuan, who was the Cory appointee.
The source of the entry is a political column of a commentator, which sadly, is biased against Cory Aquino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.207.250 (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- This page is for comments about stub sorting. If you have a problem with a specific article, the place to comment is on that artticle's talk page: Talk:Andal Ampatuan, Sr. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Bot removal of stubs.
SmackBot has now twice (if not more) removed my marking of stub templates, the latest being at Battle of Temesvár with this edit.
I have got on to the bot's maintainer recently about this when it did it at Battle of Pakozd. Unfortunately the matter there seems to have been dropped and archived before achieving consensus.
In my opinion, a bot should not make the decision to remove a stub, but WP:STUB says "Any editor can remove... without special permission". It depends, then, whether a bot is regarded as an editor for the purpose of this sentence. I believe in practice, though, it is best to leave such removal to a human's decision. In particular, in these articles which form part of a series:
- Generally they have been, or are being, translated from Hungarian Wikipédia.
- Their talk page indicates them part of WikiProject Hungary and WikiProject Military History.
- Both these projects have members who classify pages.
- To remove the stub templates may make it more difficult for them, or other editors, to find them and classify them.
- Different projects might rightly classify things differently, and since there is no standard definition of what a "stub class" article is, it need not be inappropriate that an article is still marked as a stub even though, from the perspective of another project, it is e.g. "start class", since being a stub and being "stub class" are different things.
- One, Battle of Temesvár, is cleary (to my eyes) currently still a stub (see the diff above) because it describes the pretext and aftermath of the battle, but not the battle itself.
- Since WP:STUB encourages a stub article to have what I call the "scaffolding" e.g. infobox, pics, categories etc etc, the fact that this is all present does not negate the fact that the article is a stub.
- This Temesvár article at the time the bot made the change also included the {{Expand Hungarian}} and {{Expand section}} tags. WP:STUB says an article should not have both the {{expand}} tag and stub templates. I do not think by extension this should mean any template that happens to start with "expand". I am not assertoing this was the reason for removing them, but I would regard it being so as very much too liberal an interpretation of WP:STUB, since those templates have quite distinct usages/meanings and are not merely artifacts of {{expand}}. Clarification there please.
- The Temesvár article at the time had the {{underconstruction}} tag. While not of itself even intended to prevent/delay other editors' contributions, it may be taken as evidence indicating that the article is actively being expanded, and so hint that in its current state it could well be considered a stub. Again I am not suggesting that it will always do so (otherwise it might as well come under the same guidance as {{expand}}) but it may give a hint to a human editor that it is indeed a stub.
In short, I think it entirely inappropriate for a bot to make this kind of decision. For a human editor, with the assistance of AWB, to do so, is entirely another matter, since in good faith I accept that an editor will consider the whole balance of the article and use AWB to find candidates, not automatically trust it (as a bot does).
Any opinions on this matter?
Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is probably best taken up at the WP:BON, since it is ultimately one of bot policy and not stub policy. You could add
{{bots|deny=SmackBot}}to the article, to prevent them editing it again (if it is exclusion complient) . –xenotalk 20:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks xeno. I think I will add that to all articles I create or substantially work on, since in many ways SmackBot seems to me to do more harm than good when one conscientiously creates stub articles. I am not sur it is totally one of bot policy, because WP:STUB's wording applies equally to editors who applied it thoughtlessly, e.g. the ambiguity of the {{expand}} template.
-
- I subbed my comments above before you replied, but you'd posted reply before me. I can only assure you I just changed the wording a little to make it clearer, but not the substance of what it said.
With reference to the {{expand}} templates, I'm not sure whether the rule could be extended to cover any template starting with expand, but I wouldn't think so. In any case, if an article has both {{expand}} and a stub template on it, generally it is the expand template which should be removed, not the stub template, for two reasons: 1) most articles which have both are stub articles which an editor has mistakenly added an expand template to; 2) stub templates subcategorise articles, making them easier for specific groups of editors to find - {{expand}} doesn't. If a bot has been programmed to remove one of these templates from any article with both, it should be removing the expand template, not the stub template. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. For then it is obvious that e.g. {{Expand Hungarian}} does not fall under this remit of not mixing {{expand}} with stub templates, since its primary purpose is quite different from {{expand}} i.e. to hint to other editors where they may find extra content, not merely to say that it's a bit (or a lot) on the short side. Generally speaking the same article in that tag will be an Interwiki link, but an English article may have several such links, and so it points to the one that seems to be the most likely candidate for etting useful information. Of course I am treating Hungarian articles here as an example and not a special case.
- I also agree that since stub templates are there partly to allow other editors to find and perhaps recategorise articles better (something that others may be able to do more appropriately than the translator of the article, despite best intentions in finding them), any help that can be given there it seems trite to remove, for the slight inconvenience of the clutter in the stub category (which is there, after all, for the very purpose.) It's sometimes just very hard to find the right categories or stub templates for an article, e.g. there is {{Austria-battle-stub}} but on Hungary we only have the more general {{hungary-hist-stub}}; while I could create {{Hungary-battle-stub}} and an appropriate subcategory etc, it seems superfluous right now because the only articles that would likely live in it are the ones we are currently working on anyway. As it happens, the Military Project tend to remove the stub templates after doing their assessment, which seems right and proper (although I have my doubts whether they should be removing {{hungary-hist-stub}}, which probably more rightly comes under the WikiProject Hungary, but that is a much more minor point since the two projects tend to assess the articles within a day or two of each other.)
(outdent) I have to second the motion that Smackbot and other bots not remove stub tags from articles, at least not if a WikiProject talk page tag has labeled the article a stub (indicating human judgement unless it also bears |auto=yes). I've had problems with this bot several times myself. It seems to decide that any article over X number of bytes or lines or characters or something long must automagically not be a stub any longer, no matter how obviously incomplete and messed up it is. I also agree that this is ultimately a BON issue. However, I don't think BON will "get" it or act on it without some consensus already here on the issue. I.e., we should come to an agreement here, then take that to BON for action. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am told at my talk page here: User talk:SimonTrew#Stubs_vs_stub_class that it is based on number of words with some things such as lists being weighted less heavily, and referred to the AWB documentation, which misses the point because I don't care how AWB works, I care about what rules are implemented using it. Now, personally I think AWB is an automated tool to assist human editors, not one to make decisions for itself. While SmackBot makes some uncontroversial edits, I have four basic problems with it:
- Tasks like this (and for example reordering footnotes) are prima facie if not ipso facto controversial, since they have been brought up as such.
- SmackBot generally will not simply change somthing that is uncontroversially wrong to something that is uncontroversially right, such as inserting dates into templates; it then, while it has the article, makes all kinds of other unnecessary changes such as changing the case of template translcusions, which clouds the actual real change it makes.
- Its edit summaries are usually generic and unhelpful. ("Date maintenance tags and general fixes").
- These last two demonstrate a lack of the separation of concerns means that generally one has to check the diff oneself to see whether SB has trampled it, thus reducing the value of its wikignoming work.
- Fundamentally, while it is one of the WP:Five Pillars to WP:AGF in other editors, I do not think that extends to editors that are bots. One must I think necessarily assume no faith in bots, that is to say, treat their edits with suspicion, since they cannot bring human understanding to their edits, and so have no faith themselves. (Which is not to say, of course, they have bad faith, though it can seem like it sometimes, i.e. the bot knows better than you do.) Therefore, I think at WP:STUB and elsewhere, a careful distinction need sometimes be made between human editors and bot editors. Whether the term "editors" is unambiguous enough when both are meant, or whether another term is needed (the clumsy "human and bot editors" for example) to express what is implied, I am not really qualified to judge.
- I did post this to WP:BON but I agree it is probably best kept here. I hope I made it quite clear there that it was a copy of the conversation so far that I posted here, and to which Xeno replied.
- For the benefit of other editors here, Battle of Temesvár now has the translation complete (which is not of course to say that the article is "complete" in any sense), so it's best to look at the diff I've given at the start of this section for the purpose of this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced tag?
Is there any point in adding an unreferenced tag to an early-stage stub? I note that people sometimes do this, and I generally remove it with a comment such as "of course unreferenced, it's a stub". The article clearly IS unreferenced, but the tag draws attention to the article giving the impression that it needs attention to add references to fix it up, when this will actually not help at all as there's no information to be referenced yet. I write this thinking, in particular, of the absolutely minimal stub Ship registration that I just created. (The article itself is clearly needed as articles on Flag of convenience, drug submarine and others refer to but do not define or discuss registration, but I am not qualified to write it.) To summarise: should a minimal stub be tagged as unreferenced or not? Pol098 (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Anna Lee Segal Romanov
head of the Order of Canada, having representatives in all levels of government in the course of Canadian government. Currently the Judge Advocate General for the United Nations with a special interest in Human Rights. Currently residing in Canada and consulting for the Romanov Commission and social programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.131.185 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Million Acts of Peace
Million Acts of Peace is an international peace movement started by four Rotary World Peace Fellows. Million Acts of Peace is a movement to inspire acts of peace. Acts of Peace can be any act which promotes global understanding, respect and resolve differences. For example, acts of peace can be learning a new language, volunteering and helping out those in need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actsofpeace (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your time.