User talk:Sun Creator/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sun Creator. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've asked for guidance here for alt-texting the diagrams. Cladograms and anatomy maps don't make for concise descriptions (a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes). But I have done most of them, I just screwed up the formatting and went alt = instead of alt=, which apparently matters for the tool that checks. As for the hat-notes... I suspect Birdlife can be redirected to the organisation, which removes one of the hatnotes, the other two need to stay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support for this article becoming TFA for March 18, and for the note on the article talk page regarding redundancy in the writing. I am going through the article now to remove or minimize that redundancy; hopefully, the result will be an improvement. Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link problem, so is there a chance you would reconsider your vote? Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did as much as I could per your other critiques. Would you mind taking another look? Palm_Dogg (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Made major cuts per WP:Recentism. The history section is currently 3,988 words. 2,160 of them deal with 1942-1969 and 1,820 of them deal with 1969-2009. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Readded the organization references. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Streamers done! Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

They all do, that's the thing. Every piece of ALT text is OR, because if an editor were to request a source, there wouldn't be one. No source exists for that material. That's the definition of OR.

There were two articles that brought this home to me, both articles about stories that relied on images and their interpretation, and which I was preparing for FAC. One of them was very contentious: Muhammad al-Durrah incident. Some of the most contentious images are deleted now so I can't show you them: I had claimed fair use for them but when I took the article to FAC, I was asked to remove some of them. But they were images of the boy's shooting, but everything about those images is disputed: what they show, what they mean, everything. And yet to get through FAC, I was expected to write my own description of them. That's a clear policy violation, and yet it's mandated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at some of the deleted images in this version, you'll see the ALT text I'm referring to. In the end, I think I wrote it non-controversially, but it was still OR, and if the text had been visible you can be sure other editors would have objected. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Nasty Housecat's talk page.

Note to self : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_15#Instrumentals_vs_songs Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping the issue. I agree it was serving no purpose. To your comments, and to explain, I believed in good faith that the image had permission -- I saw exactly the same tag you did. If it was in fact free, perhaps the tag was wrong. If asked, I would have looked into it. I never got the chance before you took your complaint to TFA. You argued first that the image could be made free and later changed your tune that I had already made it free by my comments on the talk page. What were you trying to accomplish? I don't deny I was mistaken about the contents of the permission. But, by extension, so were you. That is why we have OTRS. That is why we ask them before we delete things. That is why we ask them before we attack things (and people) at TFA without all the facts. But we do all make mistakes. I have found my interactions here that involve good faith dialogue in the interests of doing the right thing and improving the project to be quite harmonious -- even educational. I think there were many, many ways this could have been handled this less confrontationally and more constructively. I wish it had. I am glad the issue is closed and also wish you the best. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Question for you at User talk:Xeno#Xenobot Mk V request. –xeno^talk 17:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So with the release of Telephone, here's a snapshot of the physical release cover.
The following is the physical UK single. http://twitpic.com/1963v1
hEyyy XxMjF (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about those checkmate stubs? There isn't much more to be said, except give an example, and there probably aren't any examples from master games. I think it would be better to put them all in a section under checkmate. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge them somehow. Maybe in there own article, as there are quite a few of them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an article for them only, say checkmate patterns would be better than having several tiny articles. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good name. Go for it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen them too, and I'm not keen on them. What concerns me is that all the article titles seem to come from a single source, a book by Eric Schiller, and the quality of his chess output has been much criticised. Are there any other sources for names such as David and Goliath mate, Swallow's Tail mate etc, or did Schiller just make them up?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this was previously discussed on the chess project talk page here, and there was some concern at the sourcing and suggestions to merge into a new article, but we didn't take action in the end. I would support a Checkmate patterns article too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There are sources but not much for the minor ones. Swallow's tail can be found at sites like this for example, still put them all in one article and perhaps it would end up with something useful, especially with book sources. Yes, I support a Checkmate patterns article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Back then I suggested checkmating patterns but checkmate patterns is better. I think individual articles can stand if they have more than one source and they can be fleshed out with some discussion and especially with an example from a (master) game. Back then someone mentioned material from a book from a few decades ago by two authors that has some of that. Otherwise I favor putting them into checkmate patterns or possibly a section of checkmate. I'd rather not have a dozen similar stubs. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm undecided about whether to put those checkmate stubs in checkmate patterns or put them in a section under checkmate. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, either one. You can always change it later. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Each one of the stubs has about two sentences, and one of them is the same across all of them. If they were put into an article, there would be very little text. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt true, as they are all small stubs. But I think they have a unique diagram maybe? Some of the patterns can be expanded for sure, so it could in the future make a decent article even if not with the existing material. That suggests making Checkmate patterns as Checkmate] is currently a decent article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I plan to combine them into the new article tonight. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As you have made comments to the discussion previous can you please vote on this non-consensus binding survey. Official Telephone Cover Conflict Resolution.

Thanks Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sun Creator. You have new messages at User_talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#Chess_BLP.27s.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Maybe you can message Tim, the creator of dashbot, he may have more time to help you right now--sorry for the continued delay! Okip 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusing There are several "X discography" articles filed under "Category:X songs"; do you know of a policy/guideline/consensus against this? Does the same apply to "X albums"? Please post your reply on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you so much SunCreator! It was really great to have Zenobot find those articles for Project Gastropods. We may never have found a lot of them if you had not done that, or, if we did find some it might have taken years to accidentally uncover them. You are very kind to have thought of offering to do that for us. We really appreciate that. Invertzoo (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the new suggestion! I put the watchlist changes link on our project page. I think that will be very useful. Many thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Have been addressed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/2.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Those words were not added by me, but thanks for pointing it out. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sun Creator. You have new messages at User_talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#Chess_BLP.27s.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sun Creator. You have new messages at User_talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects#chess_bot.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

you were right! Okip 12:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please see my response under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Was_wir_sind. I truly think you are mistaken in this matter. Marokwitz (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article had been PRODded, but another editor nominated it for speedy deletion under criterion A9. Since the article met the necessary conditions for speedy deletion, I deleted the article under CSD before the PROD had expired. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sun Creator. You have new messages at Jubileeclipman's talk page.
Message added 11:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jubilee♫clipman 11:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ditto above --Jubilee♫clipman 20:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you dropped a source onto the talk page for this article. I'm not sure if that is a reliable source or not, but please feel free to object to the proposed deletion. I'm not one to rush off to AfD right away, so if you can source it, by all means do so. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 01:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it more useful to check at least the Googles for sources when something as notable as the Israel Prize is asserted rather than list on prod as unsourced? DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not my intention to do so. In some regards it would be good that the article creator gets to fix the problem they create. So as part of my unreferenced BLP scan I'll not planning on checking for sources, or at least not in the first few days of prodding it. Also for your information the editor User talk:Sreifa creates every article without any references, something that I hope comes to an end. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, what that editor does is certainly wrong, and I shall speak to them about it--it is indeed the creator's primary responsibility. I see you have left some notices, and I will try to explain further. (checking there, it seems the actual problem is that they thought English sources are necessary; while of course they are highly desirable, it would have been enough to add the Hebrew sources, & I have so informed them). If they know enough to write the article, they know enough to add the source. I understand that what you are doing is to try to give the author some serious unmistakable incentive, and I agree it's a necessary way if nothing else works. I'd have given him a few days first . The point of BLP prod is to delete quickly the articles that cannot be sourced. It's my responsibility to see that those ones do get deleted, and as part of it I must check to see that none get deleted that ought not to, so the net effect of the way you are proceeding can be to throw the work on me. There are only a few of us admins regularly patrolling prod, and i work at the early end; the others mostly check at the end.

Okay, I see. Sorry! You got 4 days of BLP prods as I did all of Category:Unreferenced BLPs from April 2010 that is possible in a few hours here, so hopefully in the future it will be much less. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here, I see that among the other articles you;re tagging are a few that do have sources, but where they are not marked as formal references. The thing to do in such cases is to adjust them so they show.

I did that for a few. Which articles had I missed that on? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But there is a technical problem--I noticed yours because the WP:PRODSUM template is not working with the version of the blp prod template you are using, and they are getting marked as "failure to parse" Perhaps you can check on what's wrong if , as it appears, you know how to work on templates, which I do not. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It all seems to work but I see the message on WP:PRODSUM, I will see about finding out more. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello SunCreator. I wanted to let you know I removed the stickyprod from the article. I've added a few references and believe the article probably satisfies our notability threshold (although I struggle to find sources because his commonname means "train" in Portuguese and I get a lot of irrelevant results). If you think the article fails the notability guidelines, please feel free to send it to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sun, one of the reasons for the new, separate prod for unsourced BLPs created since 31 March, is because of the way bots are programmed to report the statistics gleaned from various categories. People have been working since January on a special drive to either rescue or delete articles in a huge backlog of some 40,000 dubious BLPs, while to include new ones in that list would upset the stats and categories. It will also help for reporting on progress and effect of future efforts to house-train new editors. Statistical reporting is a very important facet of making and maintaining this electronic encyclopedia - it helps us among other things to improve existing policies, and to determine new ones.--Kudpung (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Would be interested to see any statistics from the new Prod Blp. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk)

Certainly, but we'll have to wait for that until the polemic concerning the right names for all the categories an be resolved. Unfortunately each time we seem to have reached a final draft, another new editor comes on the scene and wants to change it all over again - kinda one step forward, two steps back, all the time.--Kudpung (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW: I seem to remember that User:Father Goose may have more information concerning various lists and categories.--Kudpung (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose has User:Father Goose/Unreferenced BLPs but so far there is nothing on the new process. It is statistics on WP:STICKY that I'd be interested in. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate your comments on the proposal here. Regards, Colin°^Talk 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is in ref to your msg on my discussion page. I have added 2 ref and right now there are total 3 reference on Rashmi Bansal . Let me know if your feedback ? --Viral sachde (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That was a most helpful suggestion, I recommended it to the transport project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. You proposed this article for deletion using the WP:BLPPROD process; I have contested the deletion, as it is sourced to IMDB, which I believe is generally acceptable as a source. If you still feel the article should be deleted, feel free to take it to AFD. Robofish (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, IMDB being a user added content like Wikipedia doesn't meet the requirements of a WP:V#Sources, would be helpful if you could find a further source. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know - I've been generally removing unreferenced templates from articles that are cited to IMDB. In this case, the best I could find apart from that are these pages on TV.com and movietome ([1], [2]), both of which are pretty trivial. I'm not sure whether or not that's enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:BLPPROD, but it definitely doesn't look like she passes the notability test for people. Robofish (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, on further consideration, I've just WP:PRODded the article myself. Robofish (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)My understanding is that a trivial source would suffice for WP:BLPPROD. A trivial reliable source does show that subject is not a hoax for example. IMDB on the other hand could still be a hoax, as someone could hoax both an IMDB and a Wikipedia entry. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed WP:BLPPROD from this one as well. In this case, I found this source, which though brief, seems reliable enough: [3] Robofish (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work, well done. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah! That would be great! I know there are articles out there that don't have our WikiProject tag on them and it would be great to find them all and then be able to include them. Thanks so much for thinking of us! Invertzoo (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure I can check that category list, but please tell me what I should be looking for when I am checking it. Do you mean check that it includes all our categories? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Cave snail" is fine as a category. I am not sure which comment you saw but perhaps I was saying a long time ago that just plain old "snail" or "slug" is not useful as a category. I am about to conk out for the night right now but I will look to see if I think the category list is complete, tomorrow. best, Invertzoo (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• See User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests#WP:GAST there may be some categories that weren't identified. –xeno^talk 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Songs}}

Should I move this to {{WikiProject Songs}} prior to the run? –xeno^talk 15:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, not at the moment. Maybe a separate task to sort out these templates. If you where to move, {{Song}}(and maybe others) would be a double redirect, see Template_talk:WikiProject_Albums#If_you_are_going_to_redirect_templates.2C_keep_the_code_in_the_redirect. Article alerts (not sure there is one for songs but) requires a check see User_talk:MSGJ#Wikiproject_tagging. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Double redirects are easily fixed. If you think it's better to keep it as {{Songs}} on the merits, that's fine; but if it's going to be eventually moved to {{WikiProject Songs}} for consistency, it should ideally be done before the bot tags tens of thousands of new articles. =) –xeno^talk 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't mind either way. You where in on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Project_tagging_and_assessment discussion. I'll leave the decision to you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm about to go through the untagged songs that don't have stub templates and don't have inheritable ratings from other projects. Do you want me to tag as stub if they are below a certain size? We can't use the automagic way we spoke about because it apparently floods the job queue. Bio was using "below 1500" as a metric, but do you want to up that a bit? –xeno^talk 19:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • First of all I'd like to remove all the tagged that have been put on the incorrect categories. Sadly I just noticed a load more '*song collectors'. I gotta go out, be back later. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Should be all set now. –xeno^talk 23:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That's good an quick work :) Back to the main question. Yes, I'd like them tagged as stub if they are below a certain size? I guess the next question is, what is the size. Let me go check some. Bio used 1500bytes? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Up to 1899 bytes=Stub, 1900 to 7999 bytes=Start, over 8000 bytes=C class, any higher rating require human input. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Have done quite a bit of searching but seems no size definition of a stub before. Where was 1500 talked about? A bio search doesn't find it. I'm quite happy with those figures. What about the exclude categories? Would it be useful to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs/Categories/Exclude page? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
            • I gather 1500 was a conservative value. It is difficult to peg down a "size range" for a stub, per WP:CL-RULE. The 'exclude' will be fine if you want discographies and the like excluded but they appear in categories within WP:CATS/SONGS. –xeno^talk 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
              • WP:CL-RULE was an interesting read, you could auto adjust for importance so London would have importance=top, indeed it is top for four WikiProjects. Anyway, what do you mean they appear in WP:CATS/SONGS? Do you mean that the excludes should be added in WP:CATS/SONGS? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
                • I meant that - if there are articles that are in an applicable category listed in WP:CATS/SONGS -- but you know they aren't in the scope -- then yes, create a /Excludes subpages that lists the categories that will highlight its out-of-scopeness. Basically, yes- what you said ;p –xeno^talk 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

← FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Xenobot to auto-assess articles based on their pagesize. You still want this done, yes? –xeno^talk 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I do. Just want to get the in include/exclude of Albums/Discographies cleared and agreed see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Scope_of_WP:SONGS.3F, before it runs. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Will hold for your go/no go. –xeno^talk 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI I crunched the numbers in the unassessed category: 4792 stubs [4]; 8477 start class [5]; and 963 C class [6]. –xeno^talk 04:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong object to this. See my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Xenobot_to_auto-assess_articles_based_on_their_pagesize. If the articles have not been assessed by a human, they should be tagged as unasssed, unless they have a stub tag, in which case it is fair to autotag them as stubs.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think to move things along, you might put up a straw poll. It looks like most people are OK with assessing as "stub" based on size, less so "start" and even less so for "C" class. –xeno^talk 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• • I'm happy now without having a C class auto-assessment as those 963 articles as that can be done manually and identifying them based on article size is more useful then auto-assessing them anyhow. I wonder if it's easier to create a new bot request rather then have a straw poll. What do you recommend? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• A BRFA still requires consensus at the project level. –xeno^talk 22:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What's an BRFA? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Bot request for approval". I'm not sure what you meant above by "I wonder if it's easier to create a new bot request..." - bot request where - at WP:BOTREQ? But you already have a bot-operator - me! You just need to demonstrate that consensus exists for the task. I think it probably exists to class as stub based on size, but I don't think it exists to class as start. The assessment scale says that a start class article will have sources to verify the subject. While the bot can look for ref tags, it can't determine the veracity of those refs. –xeno^talk 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean a new instances of the request with a new {{subst:User talk:Xenobot Mk V/process}}. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, there's already a discussion (albeit stale) with supporters and opposers. It might be best just to make a new subsection, outline exactly what is to be done and ask people to support/oppose. –xeno^talk 23:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and started a straw poll: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Straw poll regarding assessing as stub based on pagesize of article. –xeno^talk 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the task is derailed as Stubs only will leave a lot of unassessed articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this can be a bit of a test bed to see if there are any complaints raised (baby steps). After that we can go back and look at doing it for start class articles that have "ref" tags and see if people are amenable to this. Songs could also simply declare themselves not part of WP1.0 and do whatever they want in terms of class. –xeno^talk 17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)