User:Grutness/archive27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

1 Stubstuff
2 Otherstuff

[edit] Stubstuff

[edit] {{Turkey-musician-stub}}

This is a reply to your message on my talk page. I checked the links you gave, but I could not find a deletion discussion about this. Can you please give a direct link to the SFD for this stub template? Thanks. There is no mention of a SFD on the stub's main page, either. Deniz^T_C 02:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The catscan (that I became aware of just today, thanks to you. Thanks to you (not a repetition)) shows that there are about 100 articles that can be tagged with this stub. I will try and populate it soon. The Turkish bio stub category is quite huge imo. If something comes to your mind, please edit the template. It is quite open to improvement. What categories do you think would be fit for the articles about Turkish musicians, that are currently stubby? Should I delete super categories like cat:Turkish musicians, when I add this stub template to the articles? Thanks. Deniz^T_C 06:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

With approximately how many articles would a category for stubs be considered very large or very small? I am planning to create some more Turkey related stubs (like {{Turkey-mil-stub}}, {{Turkey-hist-stub}}, {{Turkey-school-stub}} (would this cover universities as well?)). Should I make proposals first? Deniz^T_C 07:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub cats (metatemplate idea)

Exploring the possibilities.... and complexities of stub tags. They can be cleared down, np. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53 26 September 2007 (GMT).

Have a look at Template:Asbox and tell me what you think. Rich Farmbrough, 16:41 26 September 2007 (GMT).

Oh, the point isn't to support stub sorting, although you guys do a great job, the purpose is to resolve a number of issues with existing stub templates, by

allowing modifications across the family of templates
allowing standard approaches in particular:
1. making all templates part of their own class with a sort order of " ".
2. allowing all templates to support a common sort-order syntax
3. putting all templates in a category of stub templates if required
4. allowing simple tests to identify/overrule image size
5. getting stub boxen to line up better
avoid or reduce new stub templates being code which are broken.

I can very simply retrofit this to at least 95% of existing stub templates, and with a small amount of work to the rest.

As far as "making it too easy to create new ones" the templates {{metastub}} adn {{metapicstub}} already do this.

Incidentally my idea would be to leave details of style and semantics in the hands of those that are expert in stubs.

Rich Farmbrough, 07:36 27 September 2007 (GMT).

Also will make discovery of new stub types easier. Rich Farmbrough, 08:31 27 September 2007 (GMT).

[edit] stub metatemplate idea

I thought you were rather vehemently opposed to that idea when it popped up before. Or am I misremembering (or indeed misunderstanding at the time -- or some combination of the two?) the gist of your sentiment? Alai 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on Rich's talk page. If the purpose is as I initially thought, then I am - but if the purpose is primarily to make it easier to edit batches of templates at one time, I've no objection. I really don't know enough about coding to know which this is, or whether it is likely to be used for both. If it's likely to be used for both then yes, it's a big problem. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] parameterized stubs

you made a comment on Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/October/1 about some parametrized stubs... I was trying to find this conversation, but I don't know what you're referring to and I'd like to find out what it was about. Aaronw 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The most recent attempt at parameterising stubs is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub template standardisation, and is currently causing a large number of headaches for stub sorters. Earlier suggestions of parameterised stub templates that I've found at a quick glance are at:

If you look in the archives of the various stub and WP:WSS-related pages, you'll find a lot more. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out and try to gain some greater understanding of the work that goes on here. Aaronw 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: sect-stub-1632

re: {{sect-stub-1632}}
from here Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Grumble -- SO what if I don't call it 'stub'... for Petes sake all I'm trying to do is categorize stuff. Stub sorting need not be involved. I'm looking at hundreds of potential articles forsooth, and that's for a SECTION! Thanks buddy! // FrankB 00:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my aching back! Wouldn't it have been easier to air your gripe with me and do a quiet rename? Tres easy, inasmuch as it's hardly (if at all, yet) been used. FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabartus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly. If you hadn't called it a stub, then there would have been no problem. Sadly, you did call it a stub, so it has to go through WP:SFD - stub sorting instantly becomes involved if there's a template which is named as a stub template - if it isn't actually a stub template,t hen it needs renaming with a deletion of the original name. If you'd named it properly the first time you wouldn't have had any need to grumble. And grumbling in response to me telling you where the discussion was taking place is a little misplaced... yes, a quiet rename would have been nice, but it would also have been being pretty bold with a template (a type of page where editors are advised not to be bold), and so I went through the proper procedure instead. Or perhaps you'd have prefered if it was renamed without explanation? The other question is why you need a specific section stub if, as it seems, the intention is for these to be used on articles already marked on articles already being assessed by the same WikiProject as start-class - which automatically indicated that some of the article is in need of expansion. From there, a quick glance at the article would show what parts of it need work, and a listing on a Wikiproject subpage or the article's talk page could easily list any specific problems. This is why no other (correction, to the best of my knowledg one other) WikiProject has a specific sectstub - because they are unnecessary and simply double WikiProject workloads. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, so I should just db-author it, and we can delete it and pretend it doesn't do the same job when named 'ex-sect'. OR some such. Last spring you suggested nominating me for admin--this sort of anal nitpicking is exactly the kind of thing I try to avoid--and why I wouldn't want the job. I've little enough time for editing that accomplishes something. I certainly don't have time to keep up with every little nuance of the endless guideline pages, and monopolizing the use of a perfectly common term is IMHO, both bullshit and out of line. (Who Died and left you guys king?)

My key interest and point needing addressed is that it, by whatever name, that it allows the "non-project" editors to maintain a list of what needs attention. I've no time to organize a formal wikiproject either, thanks. Been there, done that twice, not impressed. Developing these works is going fine under wikiprojects Novels, whenever they stick in their oar (which in any case would be a parent project). Technically, I'm even a member of that and the series sub-projects--I drop in there about as often as I view my watchlist--rarely. Mixing these in with any {{novel-sectstub}} is contraindicated --neither group needs the clutter in the tracking category, if any exists. Note however, the shared templates in our cat.

So bottom line, those of you with ample wikitime want those of us too little to jump through administrative hoops for accomplishing the same thing but in five times the time. I switched to be a Republican to avoid supporting growth of such anal bureaucracy, looks like I should've stayed away longer from wikipedia too! I've only a limited amount of personal discretionary time like any one with a real life. Unfortunately, far too many here are young and can't appreciate that. So sorry to see you've been captured by the system. Cheers //FrankB 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you live with Pegs suggestion[1] and can we just get it done so I can use it as I address cleaning things up. That inline notice sucks in article space. // FrankB 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Duh-Ohhh! (missed that detail) Let's get someone to close it then, it's the delays from "process" in this kind of thing that bugs me. Which is why I'd have appreciated a word before you invoked the process. Ignorance IS a defense when there are so damn many little empires... if you want to invoke "community", how about building in some common courtesy into the steps of administering the process. A quick concern post, an answer, a move, a glad {{db-author}} of the offending name, done.

Can you imagine working with someone, and not poking your head over the top of his cubicle to ask a question? Would he be a little ticked if you went to the boss each time there was a question? 'Nuff said. I may not know all the angles, but I will be and do take time to service reasonable concerns and questions— going in either direction! <G> // FrankB 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seems out of place

From the discussion on WSS -- didn't seem my answer should go there!

BTW, I find it interesting that you say the last time you requested a stub type there weren't enough articles, yet you haven't come back to try again now that the number of articles is far larger. If there are over 60 stubs, then it's very likely that a stub type for 1632 would be a very reasonable idea and supported by WP:WSS.

Oh, and unfortunately, we don't use notarised documents on WP - this is a website. Grutness...wha? 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry-almost missed this.
When I said syntax above, I was merely saying I could successfully spell "sect" and "stub" and (just as large a miracle) somehow get a hyphen in between so they link. NBD! As to the rest... Just chaulk it up to the same reasons I wouldn't be an admin—keeping up with all the changes in guidelines and such cuts into editing time too severely, as does admin work patroling this or that. Same reason I haven't tried to organize work on 1632 as a formal wikiproject--I suck at checking my watchlist too, among other things. I run into enough squabbles about minutia with the occasional WP:AMA case, so frankly, having been burned by WSS on 1632 stubs, I can go without.

There better be less than 20 stubs! It's better to write them at some length and avoid the issue, and for articles, I really have no problem using the generic {{sci-fi-stub}} [though I'd prefer a {{alt-hist-stub}} which I thought I'd seen and used at one time]. There have been maybe 30-35 occasional editors on series content in two years (most work only part, and come back sometime after another book is out, etc.), and the series talk page seems good enough for the work we've done. A formal sub-project of Wikiproject Novels seems unecessary given I know that some of those who have contributed most to the article set are some of the busiest people I've met here on wikipedia, for example two doing post graduate studies and research. I run a business. Ergo, we stumble forward as best we can.

At the moment, I've resolved to put the biggest issues behind plot synopsis on a firm footing, work which mainly means building a character compendium with redirect links to a section, so article prose can discuss plot both without being too "In-universe", nor have to go into background detail on repeating characters—such can hopefully be handled mostly in 1632 characters with redirects to sections and by a few well chosen character articles on the movers and shakers that see a lot of mentions in 1632 tales^{[1] [2]}. In the meantime, adding cites, writing citation templates, cleaning up support articles like 1632 Editorial Board and roughing in such as 1632 institutions leaves me lots of needs for a sect-stub to track things which need more work. Cheers! // FrankB 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. -- subtitle-while I slept![2] Now there's a good example of wikiprocess going amuck. I guess I should take down my shingle. Sigh! Glad I took the summer off! // FrankB 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I've spent the last few weeks organising and running an art exhibition while doing double-shifts on my reviewing job due to a fellow worker being away. Probably made me more grouchy than I needed to be on this sectstub business, for which I apologise. I'm a little surprised that there's no alt-hist-stub, too, but looking at what there is in the science fiction stubs it doesn't look like it would have a huge number of articles using it. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know you were all that grouchy--must be a smooth bastard when you're on a roll! Jes wish you'd said hey Frank... and so forth. NBD, but I'dve left the process for later. I suggest people clean up this or that, or db-author orphaned things all the time... never had anyone yet tell me to bugger off or resent it. (That I know of! <G>). Alls well that ends well. I've something to hang, and now on another task! (God has a twisted sense of humor, I thin'!) ttfn // FrankB 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the issue now?

First you say there would be scope for a mississippi-tv-stub then you nom it for deletion when I create it in preparation for deletion of the mississippi-media-stub. What gives? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied. In a nutshell, I nominated for renaming, not deletion. Grutness...wha?

[edit] Stub deletion

Hi, why did you nominate Template:Math-comp-stub for deletion? It's part of a new WikiProject, and I'm fairly certain it's in the correct format. Temperal^xy 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the policy on stub deletion. I can provide you with at least fifty good examples of use of this stub; I just haven't had time to apply them yet. Temperal^xy 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, then, I'll attempt to patch up the generic one and leave the biography one for deletion. Thanks for your notification! Temperal^xy 01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "China"-sports-venues-stub

I proposed and now want to create a template and stub for sports venues in China. Both you and User:Alai were involved in a discussion as to the name of the template/category. I have asked User:Pegship her views as the person who closed the discussion but she put me on to the two of you. I would like to create the template and category and so are asking both of you what name to use. Waacstats 10:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand geo stub cats

I took a look at this SFD, but I'm kind of confused as to what is going on. Clearly Taranaki and Hawkes Bay can be kept because they are at size now. No one mentioned the Marlborough rename, but I'm assuming that can go through. However, the rest, as you mentioned, is kind of a mess. Is the following what you are suggesting?

Keep Nelson and Tasman templates as is, both feeding into a Nelson and Tasman cat
Keep Gisborne template and feed into Gisborne and Bay of Plenty cat
Feed Bay of Plenty template into Gisborne and Bay of Plenty cat

I hope I sorted that out correctly. Let me know if that is the case, so I can close this SFD. Thanks! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otherstuff

[edit] Kaiser Bill

Usual version: Bill, then Crown Prince of Prussia, objected strongly to the King of Tonga being given precedence over him at the dinners etc for Victoria's Golden Jubilee. Edward VII (then POW) told him:"Look Willy, either the fella's a King, or he's just a n****r, in which case what's he doin' here?", but I see there are variants like at the end here. Johnbod 02:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You need a vacation...

...but this will have to do. Cheers!

Barnstar from Her Pegship moved to Barnstars page :)

[edit] where ?

sorry I don't know but where is Dunedin? Stasi2 19:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

here!

[edit] Thank You

Greetings

Thank you for the welcome. Correct, I am an Otagoite, living in Dunedin. I share an interest in birds and their habitats, such is it that I have wrote related paragraphs in Washdyke Lagoon and Toko Mouth. I was hesitant to create an account on Wikipedia. The strict nature, non user-friendly community put me off. However, I have found a niche to contribute on places not yet demonstrated on Wikipedia - and there I was thinking there would be no way to find an article to write about which wasn't on Wikipedia. I guess I was expecting everything to have strict etiquette and guidelines. My next goal is to create an article on the Tokomairiro Wetland Reserve (we own a holiday home at Toko Mouth). I'm familiar with the river, as I have kayaked up a fair distance, but I'd love to explore the wetland and do some birding while I'm at it (I am a bird photographer as well).

Enough about me. Thanks again for the welcome, and for your helpful edits to the Toko Mouth article.

Paul Davey 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NZ-Oban.png

Hi Grutness, just to be sure. Are you the author of Image:NZ-Oban.png? I'm asking this because your picture is nominated for deletion at commons. multichill 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tetris effect

Dear James, Thanks for the "weak keep" for the Tetris effect. I've made some changes to the article, which I hope will strengthen your opinion enough for you to discard the "weak". Robert P. O'Shea 09:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)