Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep, with several people suggesting this is out of process. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals
I don't expect this attempt to succeed, because the cruft level is quite high when it comes to stubs and those who believe in cruft around stubs, and those stub cruft people are more than likely to call this a bad faith nomination since they're too deep into regulations and such to see any other viewpoint. I think trying to edit it within wouldn't work either, since the stub cruft masters would probably gang revert any attempts at reform almost instantly.

However, let me ask you something. What would Wikipedia be like if you had to ask permission to someone to start an article? Can you imagine that? Well, that's what's happening, or at least trying to happen, with this page.

Most of us know better that Wikipedia is an open source project, and just either Ignore things like this if we really want to make a stub or what have you.

However, if you were a Newcomer, what would you think when you see this template below?

I would think that Wikiproject Stub sorting OWNS stubs, and i'd have to scrape and beg to the stub cruft people or be shut out.

To me, that's not an acceptable way of working on Wikipedia. karmafist 18:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, this page is an essential part of WP:WSS. Comment: Karmafist, were you unable to find a better way to make a point? Conscious 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Nope, couldn't think of a better way. The cruft level is far too high IMO for any change to occur any other way. If you can think of a better way to make WSS into a project of Stub "sorting" rather than stub "regulation", please let me know. I don't expect this, because currently all of my dealings with WSS have just been strewn with border line personal attacks from Grutness, you, and a few others. karmafist 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We have managed to refrain from personal attacks, haven't we? I hope it'll stay so. Conscious 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination (indeed, karmafist) to prove a point. Karmafist deliberately misrepresents the WikiProject, its participants and the way templates work on wikipedia. Templates are not articles and do not work like articles, therefore the example of having to request permission to start an article is completely flawed. This wikiproject plays a vital role in the maintenance work of stub sorting and categorizing. We do the work of sorting the articles, so that knowledgeable users can expand the article beyond stub status. We do not own anything on Wikipedia and we do not bar non-participants from joining in stub creation. The proposals process is a vital part of harmonizing and structuring stub categories. We can't prevent vandals and other bad-faith contributors from creating nonsense stubs, but we are here to assist and advise good-faith users on how to properly create a stub and categorize the stub category. Aecis praatpaal 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Aecis, would you mind changing newstubs to help better show Newbies both to stubs and to Wikipedia as a whole, that WSS is in fact not in charge of stub creation, like you say? A "proposal" begs the question on who such proposals are being proposed to. A better option would be maybe "ideas" or such. karmafist 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should I edit newstubs? The template is comprehensive and correct. Did you happen to notice the words please and discuss on that template? And why do you keep linking to WP:BITE? What are you trying to prove by that? And do you know how bad nonsensical templates screw up Wikipedia? It's easy to fill it with hundreds of articles in a matter of minutes, but it is a sisyphus labour to undo those edits. Just doing whatever you like because you feel like it works about as counterproductively as it can get. What you're basically suggesting is anarchy and chaos. Aecis praatpaal 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This nomination is absurd. The stub-sorting project is doing far better at categorising stubs than the Wikipedia entirely is at categorising articles in general, and it would be far better to be thinking about how to apply the lessons learnt in stub-sorting to general categorising, which is haphazard and poor. Morwen - Talk 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep What Karmafist is suggesting is that we basically give up categorizing stubs by a mutually agreed to system. Extending logic to categories in general would mean that we could have for example:
 * Category:American jazz musicians
 * Category:United States jazz musicians
 * Category:U.S. jazz musicians
 * Category:US jazz musicians
 * Category:USA jazz musicians
 * Category:Jazz musicians of the United States of America
 * Category:Usonian music makers who play jazz
 * Category:Jazz artists of the fifty states, etc.
 * Categories and templates are not articles. They require editors to cooperate in order to work well and the Stub Sorting project is the manner in which cooperation concerning stub templates and stub categories is being achieved.  If someone has a better idea for how to achieve that cooperation, then I hope they propose it, but throwing away cooperation should not be an option.  This is the Wikipedia not the Karmafistpedia. Caerwine Caerwhine  21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with cooperation, so why not WikiProject Stub sorting/Announcements? Let people create stubs, populate them, and then optionally announce and discuss them. WSS has instead taken an almost ownership attitude about stubs (as evidenced by the nominations on WP:SFD). —Locke Cole 05:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it takes many, many times the work to delete a stub type and recategorise everything that's been put into it than not have it made in the first place. WP:WSS doesn't "own" the stub types - but it does do its best to make sure that those which are made make sense and help Wikipedia by forming a stable structure, rather than running contrary to each other in such a way that they are of no use to editors. Read Caerwine's comments above, and imaging what it would be like if everyone started creating stub templates and categories and calling them by whatever name they wanted. The other possible outcome of removing this process - if you wanted stub categories to be in any way useful - would to have a detailed set of instructions for people creating new stub types to make sure they fit in with other stub types. That would probably run to a dozen pages or more. Far better than having one project page, I'm sure :/. Grutness...wha?  05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If everyone created stubs then maybe WikiProject Stub sorting would go back to it's original named mandate: sorting stubs. As it stands, the WikiProject has gone for a power grab approach, insisting that stubs be "proposed". I'm still digging through the history of WP:WSS/P, but it seems from this diff (which covers a conversation held for one day) that WP:WSS/P was created with the consensus of just six people (as such, I'm also going to be removing guideline from the article, though I will be replacing it with proposed). —Locke Cole 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If everyone created stubs then stub sorting as an organised activity on Wikipedia would no longer be possible. it would be impossible to keep track of what categories and templates existed at any one time, and there would be no way of knowing whether a new, more suitable template to use would exist the following day. For that reason, there would be no point in attempting to keep stubs in anything approaching sensible categories. The whole stub sorting process would irrevocably break down. Grutness...wha?  08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But there was a concensus, and it was up for discussion; I don't know what caught your interest in this, but what's wrong here? Ah, I see: we're in danger of getting flooded by another Cabal, the powerlusting stubsorting cabal. (laughs evilly) Lectonar 08:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in some links to this debate. So far I've found two debates related to stub sorting: a 12-person debate that resulted in the creation of WP:SFD, and a 6-person debate that resulted in WP:WSS/P. Now I have no problem with WP:SFD, and would happily support it's creation if it were being debated today, but WP:WSS/P reeks of instruction creep. I'd have never supported something like this if were being debated today. —Locke Cole 11:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's kind of beside the point now; the pertaining debates are history, and they lead to the now existing guideline. As you haven't (and couldn't possibly have) participated in the discussions (as I know you weren't around at the time), that's what we're here for now, today...and as it has been mentioned: you're free to participate in any way you deem appropriate. It has worked fine as it is now for quite some time, and no one objected (but let me guess: everyone who tempted to object was voted down by the owners of WP:WSS/P)--Lectonar 11:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Locke's right that discussion of the WSS/P page was held in one day by six people. But the proposal process was already well-established many months before that. The discussion was to split that page and the discoveries page WP:WSS/D from an existing page WP:WSS/C, which had a length exceeding 400kb. That debate is completey irrelevant. Grutness...wha?  22:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, because bureaucracy does work sometimes. A newbie can see that notice and he/she can find a niche where to get acquainted to Wikipedia, so it isn't "evil". Besides, they've been doing a good job. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 21:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * speedy keep part of karmafists ongoing railing against the system. he obviously hasnt read WP:POINT. BL   kiss the lizard  04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, bad instruction creep. As mentioned on the talk page, this is also very un-wiki and runs counter to what Wikipedia is all about. What's worse, when people create stubs out-of-band (that is, without "proposing" it at WP:WSS/P), the WP:WSS regulars act indignant that you didn't get their blessing first. I don't believe it's appropriate for a WikiProject to (attempt to) have this much influence over Wikipedia. —Locke Cole 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling from your other comments on this mfd that you prefer a rename over a delete. Aecis praatpaal 12:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * speedy keep. Another part of the grand plan to have Wikipedia be exactly what karmafist wants it to be, whether it causes chaos or not. He's already had a go at WP:WSS through WP:VPP, now he's trying here. Previously he cited WP:BOLD, not realising that it refers to articles and cautions against boldness with regard to templates. Now he's calling on WP:IAR, but that says On occasion, rules may be disregarded if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better. Disregarding a rule for other purposes is not good. Ignoring an established procedure for making sure the different stub types mesh together into a stable hierarchy of stub types for the benefit of wikipedia does not make the encyclopedia better. It also says some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and lead to negative consequences. It is not expressly forbidden to create stub types without consulting WP:WSS/P, but doing so quite often leads to negative consequences. Grutness...wha?  05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A useful page for keeping stubs in some categories, having categories and sub catergories of stubs makes it easier for interested editors to find articles in need of their expertise. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed guideline and replaced it with proposed, due to the fact that it seems six people were involved in creating this. I would also like to note that speedy keep votes should be reserved for bad faith nominations (which this most certainly is not as evidenced by Karmafist's attempt to discuss this at the Village Pump and elsewhere). —Locke Cole 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Given the outcome of the discussions at VPP and elsewhere, and the tone of karmafist's comments relating to the project in general, there is not much else it could possibly be considered at except bad faith. Proposed isn't really appropriate in these circumstances, either, since guideline is already on WP:STUB - the parent document which links to all WP:WSS activity. Grutness...wha?  08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As per the talk page I had added that marker "not in an attempt to give (the page) more authority, but in an attempt to show that it is not a policy," in an attempt help resolve this civily, however I have no qualms about it not being there either. My bottom line is that stub management is a good thing, and that it will not work efficiently without a hierarchy of catergories, however I am all in favor of proposals to make this easier for all editors, includie newbies.  xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although even with his proposed discussions I smell something like WP:POINT; and lets cite the always popular WP:NOT, as it is not paper. Oh, and I concur with Aecis and Grutness Lectonar 07:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And I took the liberty and removed the proposed Lectonar 07:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. However, if you were a Newcomer, what would you think when you see this template below?  When I was a newcomer and saw the template, I thought it was a good thing, to keep stubs (which are closer to categories than articles) from becoming an unordered mess.  As for the comment above about how WSS has taken an ownership attitude, I'm concerned now; because I have been able to contribute to the project, but I don't remember paying any membership fee.  Or, maybe that's just the way a cooperative is supposed to work? Neier 09:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to ownership in so far as it relates to control over something. (And this is actually what WP:OWN describes, amongst other things). —Locke Cole 11:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Last I checked WP:OWN was regarding Ownership of articles, and does not appear to apply here, if nothing else I think a consensus can be made that Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals is not an article. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The very first section of WP:OWN is titled Control of Wikipedia articles. —Locke Cole 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just like the rest of WP:OWN, which only speaks of articles. Using that in a debate about templates, categories and a wikiproject is flawed reasoning. Aecis praatpaal 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it? I believe the term "article" is used as a generalization for any page on Wikipedia (as evidenced by this brief passage towards the end of the first section– Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page [...]). There is nothing flawed at pointing out that nobody (either as an individual, nor a group) should attempt to assert ownership over parts of Wikipedia. —Locke Cole 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * According to What is an article, "a Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being lists, timelines, tables or charts). An "article" does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes." I get the impression that templates are among those specified namespaces, although they are not mentioned on the list at the page. Therefore, I've left a note at the talkpage. Aecis praatpaal 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a recent newcomer I find it useful that things such as stubs are organised (I did wish they were better explained, though). Cooperative behaviour does not imply literal ownership or regulation, people are free to choose whether or not to particpate. From the above it seems to me your chief objection is to the notice, so I suggest you focus on offering a wording that is more to your taste (without compromising neutrality, of course). --LesleyW 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The stub system would work better if it were taken out of the hands of the WPSS cabal. STFD is the only place on Wikipedia where systemic bias is a mantra, not a problem, and this page is part of the culture that creates that. Ambi 14:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You do know that SFD is part of the deletion policy, not of WP:WSS? Aecis praatpaal 14:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * i thought this mfd debate was about WSS/P not WP:SFD! if ambi wants SFD gone, perhaps he should nominate that rather that confusing this debate. BL   kiss the lizard  21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Discuss the problems with the people having spent years devising this system instead of blurting in and saying "Ooh, this pleases me more." Sam Vimes 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * spent years? I show above where the decision to create this was made in one day by six people. And there were attempts to discuss this with the people at WP:WSS/P, but they seem to be suffering from a collective "we-can't-see-the-forrest-for-all-the-trees" syndrome. Hence why the debate has moved here where (at least I'd hoped) more eyeballs might scrutinize the situation more. —Locke Cole 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure where the years comes from, but WP:WSS/P came from splitting WP:WSS/C, as Grutness noted above. WP:WSS/C has been around for almost a year, and was used for proposals since February 2, 2005. It appears up until then, all stubs used stub. But I fail to see how its exact history is especially relevant... --Mairi 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The history is relevant in that it seems this was created with little consensus from the community at large. Given that I still haven't tracked down where proposals was initially created, I almost wonder if this wasn't just created without any community input (and that inertia has just carried it forward until it's become the unruly mess it is now). —Locke Cole 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If someone is worried about people taking "ownership" of articles through WP:WSS/P then there is a simple solution -- expand all the articles tagged with stubs to full article length. Once articles are no longer stubs, the stub tag is removed. Stub status is purely temporary, so it is hard to understand how anyone can see coordinating stubs as ownership. Such ownership would never be permanent. Perhaps those proposing deletion could tell us all what they think the function of a stub is. It has been my understanding that stub tags are intended to group like stubs so that interested experts can find and expand articles with such a tag. If each person is creating his/her own stubs without checking for appropriate stubs already in existence, then what is gained? What would be lost? Would it be easier or harder to remember the spelling of an existing stub template if the stub was created at will without regard to the structure of the hundreds of existing stubs? Should each article have a uniquely crafted stub tag? As long as there are stubs, there will be a need to sort and coordinate them so that informed article writers can find places to do their best work. Having a group who discusses stubs helps tremendously, in part because no one person could have sufficient knowledge of existing stubs or breadth of knowledge to do it alone. Nominating the process of stub coordination for outright deletion without proposing an equally viable alternative is bizarre, to say the least. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue being discussed is one of ownership of stubs themselves, not articles which happen to have stub templates on them. I proposed discarding WP:WSS/P (Proposal) and creating WP:WSS/A (Announce) which, for me, would solve the objection I have to WP:WSS/P (there would no longer be this implication that you should seek permission before creating a stub; instead, people would be encouraged to announce stubs after-the-fact (where they can then be modified or, in extreme cases, nominated at WP:SFD). But, IIRC, nobody responded to that suggestion. —Locke Cole 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. Since you're proposing an alternative, it's not the concept of the Proposal page that you object to, but rather the implication that you should seek permission that comes from the page. It sounds to me as though a change in the language of the page and its project templates might be enough to satisfy you. The WP:WSS/P is not a place to seek permission, but a place to share people's ideas and input. In most cases I"ve seen, the only issues to consider are: (1) Is there really a need for the propsed stub, or will an existing stub suffice? and (2) IS the proposed stub name sufficiently clear in meaning and structured like other existing stubs to make its use consistent and clear? There also have been some cases where the name and/or structure of a stub turned out to be contentious, and I for one think it is better to hash those concerns out before a lot of time is wasted renaming, resorting, and possibly deleting stubs. As for your proposed solution, people may not have specifically mentioned it, but the serious pitfalls have been raised both by myself and others in the course of this discussion. --EncycloPetey 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * strong keep The current process helps keep consistant naming and catagorization among stubs, adn hleps avoid the creation of ill-advised stub types. if a stub type is once created and many articels are tagged wiht it (as can easily happen quite quickly) clening it up is alot of work, not the easily reverted situation of an article edit or creation for which WP:BOLD is appropriate. DES (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. As long as all stub types are centrally documented I think we can loosen stub-type lockdown.  Project:Stub-sorting needs to bypass this kind of beuracracy, at least for a while, or nothing will ever get done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.207.248 (talk • contribs)
 * User's first edit. Aecis praatpaal 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bureacracy can work sometimes, and in this case it does.--Sean|Bla ck 09:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Valentinian 15:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and the same for any similar "please talk to the relevant project" tags. Any organised system needs some form of maintenance of that organsation if it is to remain useful; who better to speak to over it than the relevant project? If only people did this for image copyright templates... Shimgray | talk | 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, many editors appear to find it useful, although I don't find it useful myself. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep useful part of the project. -- Etacar11   13:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I am all for a stub sorting project to organize stubs. But having to propose for a new stub, getting it approved, is time consuming. I agree with Karmafist on this. You don't have to ask for permission for creating articles. Why do that for a stub? --Ganeshk 23:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, would like to add that if the page does not get deleted, new stub proposals must atleast become localized. Proposals to add India related stubs must be added to a seperate page that has Indian audience (may be under India Notice Board). I think putting them under a long list like the current one is not helpful. - Ganeshk 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or refactor into a place that encourages boldness. I was bold and made US-road-stub and UK-road-stub a while ago, sorting more than 50 articles from road-stub into them, and was politely told to please use the standard method of requesting creation of stub types. I note that those stub categories are now themselves overflowing with articles and have been split (at least the US). --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates! ) 17:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the more I look at anything stub related, the more I think the people involved are control freaks.. —Locke Cole 17:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I can see, this is the only way of keeping stubs from anarchy. Without a centralised area for discussion, duplicated and orphaned stub templates would just get out of hand. GeeJo (t) (c) 23:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Blank Verse 21:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since this is a policy issue, it should NOT be at MFD, but should have been at Requests for comments. Blank <sup style="color:#F88017;">Verse  22:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Where else would we propose new stub templates? And if we just went ahead and created them we'd end up with things like GundamDeathAngelMobileSuitXRM3658-YXP-6789PQ-stub (and yes, I made that up). &mdash; J I P  | Talk 16:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can the stub sorting proposals be decentralized like what was done in WikiProject Deletion sorting, where India related deletions can be cross-posted onto WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India. - Ganeshk 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.