User:Triddle/stubsensor/20050623

This project is completed, check User:Triddle/stubsensor#Reports for the newest version.

If you disagree with the removal of a stub tag from an article please see the article discrepancy section.

Stubsensor never edits an article, only humans do. Welcome to the third stub cleanup project by Triddle. Here you can get information about volunteering to help remove the stub tag from articles that are really not stubs; this cleanup project is made possible by stubsensor. Continue reading for further instructions.

How to help[edit]

The task is to remove the {{stub}} tag (or one of its relatives) from the listed articles that it does not belong on. This is really the key; it would be simple to make a computer program to remove the tag from each article but this is not what should be done. A human really needs to make a decision to remove that stub tag or not.

Sometimes it can be difficult to judge if an article is a stub or not. In this case the safest thing to do is just to ignore the article. We will run across it again and at that time it might be more clear. In general stubs will be short, 3 to 10 sentences long. However there is no rigid rule for stub or article length. It is possible an article for a simple subject can completely cover it in only 10 sentences. It is also possible that a stub for a complex topic may be much larger than 10 sentences.

The stub tag is a good way to indicate an article is one that your average person would be able to conduct research on and expand. If further expansion of the article requires college education or fundamental understandings of the concepts then the {{expand}} template is probably the best choice. A stub is certainly not just an article that needs work: if the article has more than a stub worth of information but needs to be cleaned up, remove the stub tag and put {{cleanup}} at the top of the article.

Where to help[edit]

You are more likely to contribute useful work if you read the How to help section above.

To contribute follow one of the links below and sign your name in a section. Each page is split into 25 sections and each section has 20 articles. Further instructions are in each individual section. Thanks again for your consideration.

Overall 100% done

~~20050623-1~~ 100% completed
~~20050623-2~~ 100% completed
~~20050623-3~~ 100% completed
~~20050623-4~~ 100% completed

Volunteers[edit]

Feel free to sign your name and leave any comments if you volunteer for this cleanup project.

Thanks for helping everyone. I look forward to reading any ideas or comments you have. Triddle 18:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I do this often anyways :-) ... note : i am very slow, because I like so much to read the entire article, add some categories, write an intro, etc :-) --Fred-Chess 22:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop doing the sections you've claimed then. :-) --Woohookitty 4 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)

NickF 23:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm the king of this. :) --Woohookitty 28 June 2005 03:56 (UTC)
This is oddly satisfying. -- NymphadoraTonks 29 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)
On the job. -- D. Wu 8 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)
Putting my hand up. I'm a stickler for neatness, so this is right up my alley. -- Steven Plunkett 29 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Article discrepancy[edit]

Stubsensor never edits an article, only humans do. See the how to help section for the instructions to the volunteers.

If you are another contributor who believes the stub tag has been removed from an article in error this is the place for you. Please list the article, the reason, and sign your comment. The goal is to work together to make sure stubsensor incorrectly locates as few articles as possible and make sure the instructions for the volunteers are as concise as possible.

Object-Relational Impedance Mismatch[edit]

Moved from User talk:Triddle/stubsensor/20050623

I sometimes use a stub to get someone more knowledgeable to notice that a new article has appeared and categorize it. Removing the stub tag before categorization prevents this. This happened on Object-Relational Impedance Mismatch. --MarSch 18:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The proper template for this is {{catneeded}}. -- Reinyday, 16:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of solving this I categorized the article under Database management systems. Triddle June 28, 2005 03:34 (UTC)

Another example: UglyRipe Tomatoes --MarSch 29 June 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Following Triddle's example, I categorized this under Agriculture and Category:Vegetable-like fruits. NymphadoraTonks 29 June 2005 13:25 (UTC)

More The Redeemer --MarSch 3 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Please consider that this may be abuse of the stub tag. Note that Wikipedia:Stub makes no mention of using the stub tag in this manner. Wikipedia:Categorization_projects_(current) also mentions that they help categorize uncategorized articles. I doubt the effectiveness of leaving the stub tag on an article hoping that it will get categorized: people who are looking for stubs are looking for articles that are easy to contribute to. I don't see a basis for the contention that the stub tag is a good match for what you are using it for. Additionally the two stub categories on the article already give a good idea of what categories the article could fit into; how come you don't just use that as a basis and categorize it yourself? Triddle July 3, 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Well, basically I've come to know a lot of stubs names and am not so fluent with the categories yet. Further I consider it useful if new articles get spotted. Articles that never get stubbed are not so easily noticed I think, but perhaps I will take this discussion to WP:WSS. Anyway, wouldn't it be more useful to check for untagged stubs. Articles that get some attention and are still stubbed unnecessarily can easily be unstubbed, but unstubbed stubs are not so easily identified. I suspect this seriously inflates our article count, which is not really important of course, but it is not good for stubs not to be stubbed. --MarSch 3 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

If you are interested in discussing it I would give say that the it is explain by the concept of "stub": articles put into categories so that others can attend to them one by one. It is self explainatory that there is no point in having stub-tags for articles that are not stubs. We use a rather wide limit, when in doubt we don't remove the stub tag, we only remove it from articles that are clearly not stubs. I think we have gotten 4-5 complains so far, not much with the 1,000 articles we've destubbed [4 * 20 * 25 total article.. hmmm we've done half that must be 1,000 or so..] There are other projects that put stubs on articles. If you want to draw attention to articles you can use the attention template. --Fred-Chess July 3, 2005 17:24 (UTC)

I ran the "reverse stubsensor" when I was doing my initial research into the software that powers this cleanup project; the results were not what I would of expected. There were minimal hits and on most of them they had already been fixed before I got to them anyway. The project is centered around approximately monthly snapshots of the entire Wikipedia. I suspect that most articles get noticed by people watching the new contributions page and fix it before the dumps happen. However there is no way to know when a stub has grown beyond a stub and the stub tag never got removed unless it is through analysis. Having false stub tags decreases the signal to noise ratio of the stub system and makes it more difficult for people who want to use the stub tag to locate articles for what it was designed: providing a list of articles that your average person could expand upon. Additionally there are a *very large number* of false positives that must be waded through. When you revert the work we do on this project you undermine the time we have spent trying to increase the signal to noise ratio. Additionally the same article will come around during the next clean up project because guess what: it is not a stub. I hope there is a compromise we can reach where we can continue clean the stub system and you can give the articles all the attention they deserve. Perhaps it would be time to start researching how to create a new tag or Wikiproject to achieve your goals? Triddle July 3, 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Geography of Argentina[edit]

Article should be a Stub. It's just a Copy/Pase of the CIA Book of Facts' Info, that it's not even wikified. Missing things: short description of the geografy, country's Subareas (Pampa, Patagonia, Gran Chaco, etc), and some info in the CIA's table should be removed (size comparisons). -Mariano June 30, 2005 08:02 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll keep it in mind. --Fred-Chess June 30, 2005 09:25 (UTC)

IMO, that's kind of borderline. It has good information about the topic. It definitely needs cleanup though. — Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)

I added the expand tag and cut/paste your observations into the talk page. For future reference the stub tag contains no information about what is wrong with the article in question. If you have an idea of what the article lacks it is much better to put your thoughts on the talk page and place the {{expand}} so people in the future can benefit from the knowledge you have about the article but practically no one else does. Triddle June 30, 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Triddle, the expand tag should go on a talk page, though. It also implies a listing on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. Maybe the attention tag is better? — Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Bcat: Have you read the talk page here? --Fred-Chess June 30, 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it, but I forgot that this has been discussed before. Sorry to beat a (mostly) dead horse. — Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't mind if you gave a reply there, I don't think it is a dead horse :-) --Fred-Chess June 30, 2005 19:33 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. — Bcat (talk | email) 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Province[edit]

It's merely a listing of the Province's departments. Definitely a stub. This is the case for most provinces of Argentina. --Mariano July 1, 2005 07:29 (UTC)

I agree on this one; I'll revert it myself. I'll also double check all the argentina province articles to make sure the proper ones get their stub tag put back when the cleanup project is done. For the record I tend to ignore lists when considering the length of an article. In this case one paragraph for an entire province is obviously a stub. Triddle July 1, 2005 07:54 (UTC)

Young's Literal Translation[edit]

{{christianity-stub}} was removed. I (the person who expanded this article from a stubby-stub to a slightly-longer-stub by adding the minor info on tenses and the Genesis excerpt) think that's an error, because despite the length of the article, it doesn't really say very much about Young, his translation, his reasons for making the translation, the idiosyncrasies of phrasing in the translation, and so on. Keeping the categorized stub notice makes it much more likely that someone who knows about this topic will expand the article to a useful size. Stub removal reverted. --Quuxplusone 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

It's not a stub => I have removed the stub tag. Your special pleading noted: do not misuse stub tags. Just about every page in Wikipedia needs expanding. There's nothing special about Young's literal translation. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I agree that it is not a stub. I've taken the liberty of copy and pasting the list of things the article could use to the talk page and added the expand tag as well. This actually increases the probability that someone will be able to help this article out more than having the stub tag on it would. Triddle July 1, 2005 05:29 (UTC)

New Brunswick general election, 1999[edit]

I would suggest that the the stub in place on this article was appropriate. Though there is a small body of text in the article, it is not nearly as detailed as other New Brunswick election articles. See List of New Brunswick general elections. - Jord 4 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

Tumbarumba, New South Wales[edit]

The removal of the australia-geo-stub tag was perhaps a bit premature. The Australian Wikipedians' Noticeboard came to a concensus about the criteria for removing the australia-geo-stub tag. The criteria are summarised on the category talk page. I will add lat & long which will complete the criteria for destubbing the article. Regards --AYArktos 9 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)

Osiris-Dionysus[edit]

There is probably more to add on this subject. ~~~~ 20:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there is more to add to this subject however that does not implicitly mean that it should have the stub tag. Consistently this project has applied the idea that a stub is not merely an article which needs to be expanded. My personal belief is that stubs are articles that your average person would be able to expand upon. Some use the basis that a stub is an article a person knowledgeable in that field would be able to easily expand upon. Considering that most stubs are on the order of 3 to 10 sentences, and that the new stubsensor now uses statistical analysis to do stub detection (creating a positive feedback system as the stub tags are cleaned up overall), I am going to revert your stub tag addition. If you know what this article could use for expansion I implore you to use the {{expand}} tag. Triddle 23:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Laura Cottingham[edit]

The main body of this article is just two lines. The rest is the bibliography. To my mind, a two-line biography is a stub. —Theo (Talk) 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

False positives[edit]

This list is large enough; you may ignore all false positives.

Active Wiki Fixup Projects
Must be active, systematic, have lists, & need help.
Writing
Articles that need to be wikified Massive backlog. Ongoing (category) Dead-end pages These pages are not wikified. Ongoing (category) Missing articles Wikipedia is not as complete as you might think. Ongoing Most wanted articles Updated February 2015 Oldest requested articles Updated November 2012
Other
Articles needing geo-coordinates Help locate places. See WP:GEO. Ongoing (category) Articles written by a single editor Reviewing articles written by a newer editor. Updated February 2013 Bluelink patrol Directing wayward links to the intended articles. Ongoing Check Wikipedia Fix the syntax of Wikipedia. Updated every 15 minutes Disambiguation pages with links Directing ambiguous links to the intended articles. Ongoing Fix Common Mistakes Fix common mistakes in English grammar (e.g. "the the", "and and"). Ongoing moss Currently doing a collaborative spell-check of the entire encyclopedia. Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons Moving free images to the Commons so they are easier to find. Ongoing (categories) Orphaned articles Help link to these orphaned articles. Ongoing (category) Red Link Recovery Turn red links blue. Ongoing Stubsensor Help remove stub tags from articles they don't belong on. Updated August 2011 Uncategorised articles Help categorise articles. Ongoing (category) Unreferenced articles Ensuring articles include at least one reference or source. Ongoing (category) Main Inactive Mini
v t e