Category talk:Stubs

Less than 60%!

Last month, the proportion of pages in this category went below 60% for the first time in years. Since our articles are generally much shorter than those of Wikipedia, the bar for unstubbing is very low - a few sentences that give an overview can be enough, especially if there is metadata or other source of links for people to continue reading, either on the site or elsewhere. All editors are welcome to join me try and get this down to perhaps 50%! -- Robin (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Less than 59%!

It'll take a while at this rate, especially since the number of pages has grown considerably. Still, I just noticed the proportion of stubs was below 59% for the first time ever. -- Robin (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Down to 58%

Slow progress, but we're down to 58.0% today. -- Robin (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Make it 50%!

Looking at the stubs, I see things like Ambassador to São Tomé and Príncipe, which is there because Joseph Wilson had it once. If there is any further info, it will be added to the individual Ambassadors/countries/incidents, not to employment. The same with Australia/Minister for Social Inclusion or Canada/Ambassador to Albania. Since most of the holders of the jobs are non-entities and never will be added to Wikispooks, the lists will never be complete. Only a few employments are worth writing more about, like BND/President.

Like with the universities, employments are there as a long term move, since patterns will gradually become clear. Bearing this in mind, I think a particularly low bar for unstubbing is suitable for employments. -- Robin (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Another category that doesn't need to be marked as stubs, is universities, like Kraków University of Economics. Who on Wikispooks is ever going to expand on it with generalities? If there is anything of interest, it will be added anyway.

Removing these will cut the number of stubs with at least 10% Terje (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)---

Well, generalities not but I do believe small articles that are basically summary pages of swmdocs should have some small details that help circular traffic. On the university page you could include - in % - for example how how often deep state functionaries, bilderbergers or IfS's come from that university, just to help visitors identify where they should look in today's world of disinformation and official opposition narratives. Doesn't have to be a page of 50k bytes, but to help the site bounce rates. A good example of those statistics is when I added the fact that Reddit released a summary on their blog that accidentally revealed that Eglin Air Force Base was the “most reddit addicted” location, beating every big city. We're still an encyclopedia, right? Jun (talk)

I can see your point on major universities, since they will naturally draw many members of the ruling establishment and do interesting things. But there are many of the smaller places that will remain "dead stubs" forever, of no "spooky" interest apart from having one or two politicians attending there 50 years ago.

As for "employment", most of them will never be expanded beyond lists of office holders, and there is no point counting them as stubs. Terje (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)---

Good points. Please just make sure the hcards are up to Technical University of Berlin standard, for future stats-related projects/sourcing. Apart from that do continue as you wish. Jun (talk)

I'll volunteer to unstub unis/employment - it will reduce the number of stubs from 58% to maybe 40% - but let's wait for an input from Robin.

Terje (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)---

The 'circular browsing' idea is good -- stopping people reaching dead end pages, so having a variety of ways they can go from somewhere.

For some people (e.g. single Bilderbergers which Wikipedia deems not notable) it may be possible to become #1 in search engines, which will lead to new people finding the site.

I have been working on Bilderbergers, though attenders of other deep state milieu might be just as useful. The most useful of all is |description, since this appears on multiple pages. For universities, I'm content to let information trickle in as and when, rather than importing from Wikipedia (since that's only a click away anyway). The list of alumni is however not available anywhere else, so for certain institutions (e.g Oxford University/Balliol College) I suggest looking at the alumni enough to write a short desc, const, and dates (maybe unstubbing the person concerned in the process), then giving an overview of the alumni data to unstub the college or university. -- Robin (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, 57.5%!

That's quite something, considering it took a year to move from 59% to 58%, to shave off 0.5% in 17 days! Good effort. The description % is also still rising, up to 32% today. Well done to everyone involved. -- Robin (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll quickly unstub some more universities, until I get tired of it! I suggest unstubbing all employments, as most of them will never be added anything meaningful to. Even Director of Central Intelligence and US/President don't have much meaningful contents apart from the list of office holders. Canada/Ambassador to Albania or Finland/Ambassador to Tanzania or France/Minister of Sport will formally remain stubs forever unless this change is done.Terje (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)---

56.6%

And descriptions now > 1/3 of all pages for the first time ever... -- Robin (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

55.6%

-- Robin (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

54.1%

-- And the proportion of pages with descriptions is still climbing, now 35%. -- Robin (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

They stubs are coming down nicely, but this is a bigger and slower task than expected. Its tend to take away focus from work with newer subjects (especially the Covid-psyop that might be the end of us all). At this pace, I'll will be able to get stubs down to under 12000 the next few days!Terje (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Now 53.8%, but it is just a number - don't let it distract you from more urgent stuff. The globally organised efforts to ram through vaccine passports are very concerning, combined with other circumstances such as the UK vaccine rollout minister being a former chair of Le Cercle. -- Robin (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

51.3%

-- And the proportion of pages with descriptions is now over 37%. -- Robin (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

50.1%

-- And the proportion of pages with descriptions now 38.5%. -- Robin (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

49.8%

Starting at close to 60% stubs, finally over half of all articles have some contents. It took longer than expected, half a year with many edits a day, and a few hundred more than I initially thought would be necessary. If my math is correct, it is at least 16% of all articles on Wikispooks. Many of the newly unstubbed articles are significant improvements from a Wikipedia base, with added or emphasized deep contents.

There is no reason not to further reduce stubs.... Terje (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)---

47.2%

This compares with 41% that have descriptions. The aim is a description for all the non-stubs, i.e. about 53%. An easy way to find pages that lack descriptions is to go to pages which have big automatically created sections (e.g. 2006_Counter_Terror_World_Summit#Participants, London#Events, Oxford...) and just fill in the blanks. -- Robin (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

45.8%

Now with 43% that have descriptions. The #page views/visit broke a record last week, at 4.7. -- Robin (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

44.9%

And descriptions still rising, now 43.7%. -- Robin (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

COVID takes priority at the moment, but it is nice the stubs are going down. Did you just make the front page refresh every 24 hours?

Terje (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)---

No, that should be as before, i.e. somewhat random. The easiest way to do a manual refresh is just to edit the non-splaying content, i.e. inside the comment. -- Robin (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

44.5%

Today I noticed that the proportion of stubs has fallen to 44.5%, and that the proportion of pages with a description has risen to 44.5%. -- Robin (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And under 11000 stubs! -- Terje (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

43.9%

Meanwhile the proportion of pages with a description has risen to 45.1%. -- Robin (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

41.7%

The proportion of stubs is still dropping, and after fixing Template:concept, now 50.4% have a description. -- Robin (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Under 40%

Stubs are down to 39.8% or so. The task of removing them is a bit like this clip, minus the donkey. -- Terje (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC) ---

Descriptions meanwhile now up to 51.6% -- Robin (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

39.5%

Stubs are down to 39.5% (just 10,325 left...) and the proportion of descriptions is still rising, now at 52%. -- Robin (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Under 39%

Stubs are at 38.9% (just 10,200 left...) and descriptions is now at 52.5%. -- Robin (talk) -- Robin (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Under 10,000

After a final burst of unstubbing they are finally under 10,000, which was my unofficial target. Now for other stuff... Terje (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

37.6%

After great work (especially by user:Terje) the proportion of stubs is now down to 37.6%. The proportion of pages with descriptions continues to rise steadily. However, a few days back I fixed Template:Publication so it jumped today to a record 54.5%. -- Robin (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)