Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stubsensor/20100826

Article discrepancy

Stubsensor never edits an article, only humans do. See the how to help section for the instructions to the volunteers.

If you are another contributor who believes the stub tag has been removed from an article in error this is the place for you. Please list the article, the reason, and sign your comment. The goal is to work together to make sure stubsensor incorrectly locates as few articles as possible and make sure the instructions for the volunteers are as concise as possible. Jeepday (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Foo season" articles

Example from page 1. These articles typically have a lot of tables but very little actual text. Are these stubs, in general? They don't seem like complete articles; in fact, they seem to belong in an almanac rather than an encyclopedia, but that is a discussion for AfD, not here. In general, should we remove the stub tag from them or not? They seem to be coming up a lot more frequently, and I'm not comfortable claiming a section when I can see that I don't have a clue how to deal with most of the articles in it. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --NYKevin @251, i.e. 05:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Great question, and wonderful example in the end it comes down to your choice. I personally would probably destub it, but there is nothing wrong with leaving it as a stub and see what it looks like next time around. When ever you are not sure, leave the stub tag on. Some of them like 1906 Chicago Cubs season which I found in section 1 of page 1, is clearly no longer a stub. Then there is 1908 Detroit Tigers season which I found in section 2 of page 1, I chose to destub. Not a lot of text but enough to cover the topic and the tables do say a lot about the subject. Your choice to take it to AFD was a good one as well, I suspect it will pass AFD but this gives you a good chance to see the community feed back and might give you some insight for dealing with future articles that are similar. When not sure a good place to look is the projects quality scale on the talk page (generally present when there are big tables) in this case it is Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Assessment. I would say that it is two levels higher then a stub and is at level C "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.". I hope this helps and hope to see you signed up on the volunteer list. Jeepday (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Oh wow I just ran across this by accident! I can't say how pleased this makes me and I must apologize profusely to the person who was brave enough to wade through that code! It's not actually all my code either, Andrew Rodland is actually responsible for the statistical bits such as binning, feature selection, and the like. I'm going to close out a few sections. Hip hip horray! Triddle (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Coming up on 6 months

It's coming up on six months since this last report. I plan on running another one soon. However, there is still a lot of work to do on this report, so my question is: should I hold off on a new report? If not, then how should we handle duplicates? Just leave them in both reports? Or remove the duplicates from the old reports? maybe from the new report?

In short - should I create a new report soon, and if so, how can I make it most useful to those actually working the reports? ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:50, 11 Adar I 5771 / 15 February 2011 (UTC)

After a while the old reports get stale, I would run a new report and end the old one, everything still needing attention would be on the new report. Any thoughts from people who are contributing here more then I am? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. New report is up, old report is invalid. see here. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:33, 12 Adar I 5771 / 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)