Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub improvement

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Stub improvement

Template:WikiProject Stub improvement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Graham (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I have now suggested that {{Empty section}} (along with the preceding header) and {{Expand section}} should be removed after a certain time limit, mainly because they don't seem to actually result in expanded sections in the long term. Please share your thoughts there:

WP:Templates for discussion/Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section

Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Stub improvement participants may be particularly interested in the following category: Category:Cannabis stubs.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Greetings, Today I added "Related WikiProjects" and "Related categories" sections, and two navbox at the Project page. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long stub articles

Hi, At the "How to participate", I added info. about "Long stub articles". Removing no longer needed stub tags may be something new editors would like to work on. Feel free to update/change wording at the section for the first posting. Also, at article Wikipedia:Stub, I placed a "Further information" pointing to this WikiProject thinking to attract more attention here and people willing to help improve stub articles. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liking all of the changes so far. I've never been that good at design work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox for Participants section

For this WikiProject, I added a "Stub improvement" Userbox for anyone interested to add to their userpage. Thanks to @Annwfwn for helping create the template, which was cloned from {{User WikiProject Buses}}. This is my first userbox so if any errors or improvements, feel free to modify. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - those Userbox colors came from "Bubble colors" for Stub-class. The entire color spectrum for WP Assessment class-importance came from a WPBS Talk discussion; I did copy/paste here of just the colors. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project page - shade color

Greetings, fyi - Today I shamelessly cloned the project page shading from Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses onto this WP, changing color from green to a lighter "Class-stub" shading. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idea lab discussion

For anyone who might be watching this page, there's a discussion about its direction at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#WikiProject Stub improvement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stub backlog of the week

JoeNMLC, Folly Mox, Edward-Woodrow: I've created a draft of what a stub improvement backlog page might look like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub improvement/Backlog of the week/1. I'm thinking this could replace "Showcase" in the tab header, and it can be swapped with a new one each Sunday. A variety of categories would be chosen so different WikiProjects and different pools of editors feel welcome to participate. Any thoughts? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update - "Stub backlog of the week" - Checking the first article Jyoti Amge, it looks like the article itself was never tagged as a Stub. The Talk page was tagged Stub many years ago. Rater ORES prediction suggests C-class, so I changed to Start-class for now. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I used the WikiProject class category instead of the stub sorting category. Both of them have false positives, but at under 300 words, this one definitely qualifies as a stub, even without the template. On a related note, does anyone have feedback on the two selected topics? I figure Women's History and Cold War are good trial subjects: women's history intersects with every subject, and Cold War is a broad historical period that most people are familiar with. They also coincide with popular WikiProjects, the former with the women's WikiProjects and the latter with United States, politics, and history. I plan on posting notices at WP:WikiProject Women's History and maybe a couple other projects at around 0:00 UTC if there are no immediate problems. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback - While I'm not involved with either of those, I did find Database reports/Most edited articles last month an interesting list that might be used for topics. Also, besides un-tagging Orphan articles (no longer orphan), I am also de-orphaning Association football biography articles. When I looked at Category:Stub-Class football articles, there are over 200,000 stubs. So I picked out Category:Stub-Class football in England articles as a smaller group. What I see are many articles that are un-tagged (without Stub), but Talk page remains at "Stub" class. So that might be a good task to work on? Updating Talk page Class and could use 100 people to help, cannot do with a bot as each article must be checked. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback I think the trial topics are fine, but I think any topics would be fine. I don't have an issue with false positives at this stage: a technical destubbing still counts. As to sportsbio stubs, it would be kind if we could help out User:BeanieFan11 now that WP:LUGSTUBS2 has closed in favour of removal from mainspace.
I looked at a couple articles in the weekly backlog, improved citation templates on two of them, and came away with the impression that we could use some sort of tag to display on the backlog page, specifically Malhun Hatun^{[sources in Turkish]} and Gisela of France^{[sources in French]} or something similar. This might save people time.
I did add {{Annotated link}} to the bare links on the backlog page, but {{AnnotatedListOfLinks}} might be easier, but incompatible with the ^{[sources in Language]} idea above. I think the backlog is ready to link from the front project page. Folly Mox (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it while I was typing, but BeanieFan is currently organizing a drive for sports stubs, and I'm hoping to have some sports topics here coincide with that to get more eyes on both. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - From Preferences, I added Prosesize tool and see it shows "readable prose size" (words). Is that 300 words or less a guideline or requirement for article to remain a stub? JoeNMLC (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the examples suggested at WP:Stub. It says there "is not set size at which an article stops being a stub", but it says some editors use 250 words or 300 words as a guideline, and 500 words is used for "very unlikely" to be a stub. But of course it's more about context and coverage than specific length. The essay User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs gives a good example. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to implement this (seems like it requires javascript), but asking the enwiki-articlequality model at LiftWing (the successor to mw:ORES) might be a way to filter out false positives before they make it to the curated list. Folly Mox (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the current list I just checked them manually. One thing I did notice is that some of them weren't in the scope of "women's history" as defined by the WikiProject, so I redid the list with slightly stricter criteria. We can be more forgiving with submissions, of course, but for the list of priority stubs it should conform closely to the project's scope. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

500 words is kind of high. For example, Balanoglossus gigas, which I took through DYK... guess the word count.

326.

Let's look at my other DYK, Odontorrhina.

419.

The requirements for listing a stub on a fun project are substantially higher than the requirements to have an article featured on the main page. Just saying. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should have been 300, so I've changed it and replaced the list of priority stubs. WhatamIdoing pinging you since you were interested in this as well.

Now my sample was biased because I was looking at the most viewed, but I found that the majority of the articles I looked at while making the list had more than 300 words. I was using the WikiProject class category (Category:Stub-Class Women's History articles) because it cast a wider net, but apparently it's too wide. The alternative, Category:Women's history stubs, is too narrow, and it misses out on most women's biographies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for most projects to keep up with assessments, and almost none of them review the assessments unless asked. @Nettrom made m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table for me, so WikiProject Medicine's are somewhat less-outdated than others, but it's still likely wrong. It's of course a good thing when editors care more about the contents than about the background stuff, but it does make things a bit uncertain for this group's goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a curated list, so we're not beholden to Theme ⊆ Precisely One Category. We can always mix and match: the top few from the narrow cat, and the top remainder from a wider one, or an unrelated one! I've been puttering away at Li Shuxian, but haven't quite gotten it up out of stubdom yet. Folly Mox (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I'd also like to have one clear category to say "this is where you should look if you want other options". Perhaps it should be the stub template categories instead of the WikiProject categories. No point in offering up a huge group of false positives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new list of top-viewed articles. Thanks for updating that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And on this topic, how do we feel about the tentative subject for next week, the Cold War? I put that one because it might get the interest of history, milhist, U.S., and politics editors, which is a large group. But the stub category and its subcategories together have under 400 articles. There are almost 19,000 categories to choose from, but ideally we'll use ones that have subcategories so there's some variety. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should set up a queue. For variety, I'd like to see...

Category:São Paulo (state) geography stubs (720)
Category:Euphorbiaceae stubs (541)
Category:Ukrainian sportspeople stubs (494)
Category:Zenica-Doboj Canton geography stubs (526)
Category:Zygaenoidea stubs (480)

Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good variety, though I also want to make sure they're ones that are interesting to the average Wikipedian without too much specialized interest, at least until this succeeds as a proof-of-concept. I started with Women's History because there are options there for different focus areas. Cold War likewise has a lot of people who might see that and be interested in contributing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we have any last minute thoughts on future subjects, now is a good time because I expect to make the list soon. Ideally we should use categories that are narrow enough to be focused but broad enough so that they have at least some level of general interest. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PetScan filter for stub-class articles

Greetings, Today I added "PetScan filter for stub-class articles" section on the Project page. Since this is the first go-round, feel free to update as needed. In addition to here, I frequently use PetScan to find a small group of articles for PROD/AfD and Orphan articles. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

The alleged stub criteria given in these project pages is not supported by the guideline Wikipedia:Stub or by Wikipedia:Content assessment or Wikipedia:Content assessment/Start-Class criteria or Wikipedia:Content assessment/C-Class criteria. It creates a misleading impression that destubbing an article requires the addition of more text and more sources than the real criteria in the guidelines actually require. This is unhelpful. The present wording of these project pages is not "more precise" than the real criteria, and even if it was "more precise" it would still be unhelpful because it is not accurate. James500 (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one "true" assessment process. WP:MILHIST, for example, uses a different set of criteria when deciding an article's class. The goal of this project is to improve stubs, and its processes should serve that purpose, even if it conflicts with some bureaucracy elsewhere. One of the most important things for a project like this is to have a specific agreed upon target to reach. If you have a suggestion on how to get more people destubbing articles, then by all means. But removing a set goal in favor of a vague description won't serve that purpose. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUB and WP:ASSESS are community guidelines. The criteria they contain have the force of a guideline. They are closest thing that Wikipedia has to "true" criteria, in the sense that they are "generally accepted standard[s] that editors should attempt to follow, though [they are] best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". WikiProject criteria are WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The deprecation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Historical SOLDIER essay illustrates the risks of relying on WikiProject criteria. That said, I am not aware of any start-class criteria, even used by a WikiProject, that require 250 or 300 words, or no unreferenced content, let alone both. [For the avoidance of doubt, the "ten sentences" allegedly used as a rule of thumb by some editors is not likely to be 250 words. It has been said that an average sentence length of 15 words is appropriate for websites: [1]. That would result in a 150 word article.] I think that it would be better to create Wikipedia:WikiProject start-class improvement, or some other improvement project, than to invent new stub criteria that differ from the criteria of the guidelines WP:STUB and WP:ASSESS to such an extent that editors who support those guidelines may, and in some cases certainly will, refuse to join this WikiProject, and might even want to fork this WikiProject. This WikiProject page does not merely claim that 250 or 300 words + no unreferenced content is a target for expansion. It actually claims that articles that do not meet that target are classified as stubs. James500 (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done some technical destubbings via WP:Rater at these five articles. I forgot to run the ProseSize gadget on them beforehand. Please revert if inappropriate. Folly Mox (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page still a stub?

I recently added info to the stub-tagged page Wilmot Hyde Bradley. I am not familiar with the guidelines in this area, so I'd like to know how to rate the page (e.g. still a stub?) afther the improvements I added. Thanks :) BhamBoi (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BhamBoi, although I am not part of this WikiProject, I like improving stub articles. I have just seen your comment here, and the article you worked on definitely qualifies as a start-class article. Good job with improving it! Lotsw73 (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply!

BhamBoi (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]