Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/26

Stub/doc

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was  

Keep. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved from WP:TFD, where discussion was reopened for some reason, despite the initial discussion taking place here at SFD.

This is more a procedural thing that anything else. A /doc file has been created for stub - similar files have been deleted from the template in the past, so this is the re-creation of a deleted page. It is worth debating whether such a file is useful or not.


 * Reasons in favour of having such a file
 * It allows any editor to add an interwiki link, rather than having to request it at Template talk:Stub
 * All other templates have /doc files (not strictly true, but the vast majority do)


 * Reasons against having such a file
 * WP:STUB serves as a de facto /doc file and is already linked from the template
 * Since all stub templates operate in identical ways, the same doc file would theoretically need to be linked to some 3000+ templates
 * If it's not linked to all these templates, we may see a proliferation of stub /doc files which suggest different usage for each template (which would render stubbing largely unworkable)

Personally, I'm against having such a /doc file - the second and third points listed against having them outweigh the benefits of the points in favour of them, so would prefer to see this deleted. This is especially the case since - given that stub is removed ASAP from articles and replaced, there's really no need for the base template to still be protected (if protection were removed, anyone could add interwikis). If others see things otherwise, this would be a good opportunity to state their opinions. Grutness...wha?  00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Firstly this is not a stub, it's a template, so it should probably be listed at WP:TfD. I'll see if I can maybe transclude it at both. ✅
 * All templates should contain instructions (or at least a link to instructions) on how to use them. Yes, "stub" does link to WP:STUB, but I don't think it is intuitive that you would click that to get information about how to use the template. You are more likely to think that it would tell you what a stub is. And typically a lot of these stubs link to Perfect stub which directs to an anchor lower down in WP:Stub. It would make more sense to have a sentence like "For full details on how to use this, please see Stub."
 * I take the point that there does not need to be a separate documentation for each stub template. That would be overkill and may well cause confusion.
 * The first advantage is the biggest for me. It is a complete waste of an administrator's time to attend to these trivial requests to add interwiki links, when there is a perfectly good method available which avoids it.
 * To possibly solve the above two points, I have started work on Template:Stub documentation, which uses a centralised documentation for all stub templates as well as allowing interwiki links in a subpage. Any comments would be welcome. Obviously it is not finished yet. I've tried it out on a few templates where I came across interwiki requests and the method seems to work well. See Islam-stub as an example.
 * So in summary, I'm saying that we can make some improvements here. I'm willing to help, and if you'd like to discuss it with me instead of bringing the page straight to XfD, then I think we can make some headway. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Replies:


 * 1) all templates relevant to stub types are discussed here (/doc templates have been deleted here in the past), so this is the appropriate forum.
 * 2) You may be right about what would be the best wording, and I'd support such a change - however, that wording would preclude the need for a /doc file, so it's not entirely relevant to whether this should stay or go.
 * 3) (no response required)
 * 4) Unprotecting the template would have the same effect, which I suggested above. In any case, since WP:WSS contains several admins, all of whom regularly patrol stub (mysefl included), it's not an enormous hassle.
 * 5) I feel that Template:Stub documentation is likely to end up simply as a fork of WP:STUB - it'll certainly take effort to ensure that the two documents don't contradict each other. As such, I think it would end up being far more work than simply rewording the standard stub message.
 * I agree that some improvements could be made - and also note that I brought this straight to SfD as a procedural matter primarily (as I made clear to you on your talk page) - this has been deleted before, and as such should either be speedily deleted or brought here. I figured this was the lesser of two evils, and also would likely cause a more general discussion than just comments between us on your talk page. Grutness...wha?  02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems have started already, BTW, I've had to nominate two /doc files today. I hope you are willing to help, because there's a can of worms been opened here... Grutness...wha?  02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "can of worms". I really think your fears are groundless. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation. Compare the Good article process which uses Template:GA nominee or the AfC project which uses Template:AFC submission. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why. I did accept that it would be unnecessary for each stub template to have separate documentation; that's why I suggested using something like the stub doc template which centralises the documentation, but still allows interwikis to be placed in a subpage. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. If you notice from the previous version of Template:PRChina-stub, the /doc page contains only interwiki links and the edit link said "edit interwikis", so it in no way encourages people to add a separate documentation page as you fear. (I only used the name "doc" for consistency.) Please try to be more open to changes which can improve the process. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's no can of worms, how do you explain that in the six months prior to creating stub/doc, no new /doc files were made for stub templates, yet two quite a number have in the first three days since (did you make them all? I know you made some, but what about Florida-Hospital-stub/doc? Gospel-music-stub/doc? Given that there are over 3000 stub templated, stub/doc sets a precedent which is already showing unwelcome fruit. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation Show me one other wikiproject which uses over 3000 templates all of which are supposed to be used in an identical way. If you can, which I sincerely doubt, I will guarantee that it will not use/doc files but will use some more workable alternative - as is done with stub templates. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. I have provided evidence that it is already causing disruption, and plenty of good reasons why having it may cause far more disruption, and I have also already pointed out that this is why it is not done. I have further pointed out that /doc files have been discussed for stub templates in the past and rejected. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why - only because it's been suggested in the past (usually after someone has created a bunch of /doc files), and has always been rejected, along with causing a lot of work which WP:WSS had to mop up when its members could have been busy doing more productive work. This has been pointed out to you, but for some reason, you seem reluctant to believe it. As such, I wonder why you have a bee in your bonnet about these templates.


 * The same purpose as a /doc file is already well served by WP:STUB. As such, no /doc file is necessary. I also pointed out that, since stub doc would have identical information to part of that which is already at WP:STUB, where it needs to be retained, it would simply become a fork of that document. It would require extra work from all involved to make sure that the documents do not come to contradict each other; every time one was edited, the other would need to also be edited to make sure it still matched. This would be an untenable situation. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. Any that you do will be nominated for deletion here, so please do not do so. I've already explained that it is a simple task to ask one of the admins involved in the stub-sorting project to do that task - indeed, we do it regularly and it takes virtually no time to do so. As to you putting a note on a /doc page saying that only interwiki links are to be put there, do you really think that anyone seeing a /doc file for one stub template is going to open it up in an edit window to check exactly why it had been made before makign their owwn one for a different stub template? If so, how do you explain the number of new stub /doc files which have more than that itn them, the Florida-Hospital one, for instance, which was made only a day or so after stub got a /doc file, and which contains far more than just interwiki links?


 * I'd ask you to please be more open to the fact that stub sorters on en:Wiki in general know a lot more about the way stub templates work and the problems involved in creating /doc files for them than you do, simply because they have faced this situation in the past. You may do stub sorting on the Romanian Wikipedia, but the problems here are far more acute than there due to the considerably larger number of articles and stubs - there are nearly three times as many geo-stubs alone here than the entire number of articles on the Romanian Wikipedia, for example, and there are nearly 100 times as many editors on en:Wiki than on Ro:Wiki. If the search function is anything to go by, ro:Wiki has only 8% of the number of stub templates that en:Wiki does. So while /doc files might work there, they face more severe problems here. We do the best we can and quickly discover when other alternative methods of doing things work or cause problems. the methods you seem so keen on have been assessed in the past and have always caused problems and been quickly rejected. Please don't assume that a problem isn't going to occur when (a) a similar problem happened last time several stub/doc files were made and (b) there's already a growing amount of evidence that the same thing is happening again. It hasn't improved things before - and indeed has always created far more work for WP:WSS; it will do exactly the same this rtime, so again I say that this - and stub doc - should most definitely be deleted, and the sooner the better. Grutness...wha?  13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- every template deserves a good /doc, especially for protected templates. There's a simple link to the WP:STUB guideline for more complete documentation. But delete the similar stub doc redirect, and its stub documentation target. They serve no useful purpose.
 * Delete per Grutness; I disagree with the idea that every template "deserves" a good /doc (to me it seems like instruction creep), and that simple link to WP:STUB should be sufficient. Pegship (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems perfectly reasonable that the template has a documentation sub-page. Thinking it was missing, I once almost tried to create one myself. It really would have saved me time if it had been there. -- User:Docu
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep it could even redirect to WP:STUB if you wanted, but all templates should have documentation, if it exists on a subpage, that's fine with me. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the veery great size & complexity of WP:STUB, a brief statement is necessary here. DGG (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Grutness. I think that this /doc page is a solution in search of a problem. The documentation page (WP:STUB) is linked from every stub template and, since all stub templates are used in the same manner, I see no need for separate /doc pages that state virtually the same thing for each stub template. Of course, this is the best-case scenario; a worse-case scenario would be that separate /doc pages contain inconsistent instructions and, ultimately, undermine stub sorting efforts. Avoid "fixing" what isn't broken. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:STUB is anything but to-the-point, a brief statement explaining what the template does is a mercy. Flowerparty ☀ 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. /doc templates are useful for protected templates; the simple statement can also be useful to newcomers. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the discussion above makes it clear that protection isn't really needed any more for this template, and that unprotection would remove most of the need for a /doc file (and the reason it was first created). It was back in the days before so many stubs were sorted into subtypes, but this template is now normally used on fewer than 50 stubs. Grutness...wha?  00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's turn this question around. Is there any one thing that this /doc file does that couldn't be done by the simple unprotection of the template? I can't think of any, and if the answer is "no", then that would be a far better option and would reduce the risk of more stub /doc files being made. There's no need to protect {[tl|stub}} any more - it was only protected in the days when it was used on thousands of articles - on average these days it's on below 50. Delete the /doc file and unprotect the stub template. Grutness...wha?  01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular template probably could be unprotected as it generally has few transclusions. However
 * There are other stub templates which probably cannot be unprotected, and so this doesn't solve the issue of enabling non-admins adding interwikis for those templates.
 * Several editors have indicated in this discussion that some brief documentation would be very useful on this template.
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.