Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/The nature of stub sorters

The nature of stub sorters

You may have come to WikiProject Stub sorting to propose (or support, or object to) a stub type for creation, deletion, or renaming. You may have noticed that there are some stalwart member of WSS who subject every request to excruciatingly close scrutiny. You may have noticed that many stub sorters seem hard-nosed about the structure, usage, naming, and requirements for various stub types. Here's how to deal with it:

Don't take it personally.

First of all, think of anyone you know who's a computer programmer, cataloger, or other scientist. (Or for those without such acquaintances, think of Mr. Spock.) Add "stub sorter" to that taxon. When presented with a technical problem, these sorts can sound laconic, nit-picky, and downright cold-blooded. This is not usually the case. What sounds brutal, ruthless, and unfeeling to some is simply a focus on facts and technicalities rather than on personality or demeanor (yours or their own). Stub sorters are some of the most gnomish of the WikiGnomes. We are not out to vandalize your favorite project/article/category/stub type. And please try to avoid comments that ring of "you guys are all so mean...why don't you appreciate my work?"

Just the facts, please.

Stub sorters are frequently accused of disregarding certain political, spiritual, or cultural issues which can be important to the non-sorter. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stub sorters, who are acutely aware of these issues in most cases, strive to keep their personal beliefs out of the stub sorting process. They try to stick to the technical issues, which are described under Guidelines [for creating stub types], Naming guidelines, Proposing new stub types, and Reasons for deletion.

We'll assume good faith if you will.

Being accused of being uncollegial, insensitive, overly bureaucratic, overly picky, and ignorant gets the back up most stub sorters. We get that a lot. So before you complain about how you're being "treated" in any stub discussion, back off and examine the discussion without passion or personal issues.

From Wikipedia:Etiquette: "Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious – text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words that you choose – what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended."

Stay on topic.

Don't start a rant about <unrecognized political entity here> during a discussion about stub types. Frequently someone who feels that a stub type for <unrecognized political entity here> should be treated as if it were a legally recognized state, kingdom, or national entity may argue passionately for it to have its own stub type. However, stub organization is based on fact, not belief. If the entity is in dispute, WSS will usually wait for the dust to settle before committing to a certain stub type. (See Kosovo for a perfect example of this.) Stub sorters may be totally, completely, absolutely committed to the cause of <unrecognized political entity here> personally, yet they correctly don't want to use Wikipedia to make a statement to that effect.

Know when not to be bold.

For every hundred editors who cite WP:BOLD as their reason for creating a new stub template or category, there are likely to be only a handful who have actually read that guideline, and fewer still who realise that it is weighted strongly towards boldness in editing articles. Yet the guideline makes one thing very clear: "Being bold in updating or creating categories and templates can have far reaching consequences." Stub templates consist of code which is transcluded to thousands of articles, so a "bold" edit or creation can wreak havoc. Stub sorters are frequently faced with cases of editorial boldness which have left messes that they have to clear up, diverting them from more productive work. A major reason for the seemingly nit-picking nature of stub sorters is an attempt to get things as near perfect as possible the first time, thereby avoiding the need for more work later. This is also a major reason why it is recommended that stub types are proposed before creation (further explained here).

Somebody has to do the dirty work.

For every free-spirited Wikipedian who reveres policies such as WP:IAR, there must be someone willing to maintain the structure, usability, and relevance of the encyclopedia. Stub sorters are like the folks who have to sweep the street after the ticker-tape parade – they enjoy the parade, cheer for its participants, but recognize that the street has to be usable or there will be hell to pay later.

Occasionally a well-meaning editor will come by stub-land and admonish stub sorters to stop creating little nit-picky templates and categories and create something, or correct something, or discuss something, well, "substantial" – in essence, to "get a life". We have one (each), thank you, and please don't trouble yourself any further. There are plenty of people willing to pitch in on other tasks – this is the one that suits us best.

Testimonials

"A degree of organization is required for the stub tag system to be useful for editors seeking to improve articles. The 'plumbing' of the project might not be bold, sexy, or as freeform as some might hope but that's the nature of plumbing."
"WP:STUB is for *editors*, not readers, as such demands a different level of co-operativity from those people who interact with it. Causing this project to not become so rigid will almost certainly lead to applications of the 'those who forget history are condemned to repeat it'."

And finally

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.