User talk:Grutness/archive34

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

Stubstuff[edit]

Strong sense of despair[edit]

Hi Grutness. The film stub proposal was only a suggestion, I;m sure I'm not the only one who would find it useful and work through them. I guess we can make do with checking every article in the main categories. As for the attitude of Alai and his unneccesary inflated response which I find very condescending (not the first time I've got this impression) I think I'll think twice about making a proposal again and just get on with what I do The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your words. I do get the impression thoough that his response was partly due to the amount of work it would entail implementing. It was just a suggestion, just being WP:BOLD but in my own view and from the experience I have with WP:Films I think such categories would have more legitimacy than generalised genre categories such as 2000s drama films which not only include American films but films from everywhere like Brazil, Thailand and China many of which are barely related in terms of cinema, language and culture. If this encourages editors to edit world film this is great, but many editors I have come across wouldn't touch "foreign" films with a bargepole. Its kind of like an article on Mayan culture being in the same stub category as Khmer culture because they are "culture", in this case "drama" with little else connecting them. I just think that given the sheer amount of editors who focus purely on American film gives it more of a likelihood of developing in that way. The only reasons against I can think of is the oftne fuzzy distinction between American and British produced films, put this is often the case for Italian and French film in particular, over stub categorising and a major workload to implement. Regards The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an excellent film I agree. The thing is with European film, particularly France, Italy and Germany and to a lesser extent Spain, there is a huge number of films which ar eproduced between them so official "national" identify is difficult to pinpoint, e.g the film may have a German director, the film was shot in Spain, has mostly a French cast, but is produced in the italian language for instance!!! That is the problem with organising films on here and in the same way also clutters categories or naivgation templates when the cinemas overlap. I agree that genre stub categories work well for genres which are known to have a number of specialist film buffs such as horror and sci-fi who are into films form wherever, but given the amount of editors who focus purely on American films I thought it might have had some purpose even if those red links were rather scary. By language would seme plausible but many languages are dubbed or evne produced in numerous languages making the problem the same. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've tried to clear the air with Alai. It is quite obvious that he doesn't like me. The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stats stub[edit]

I wasn't aware of the rule not to have a /doc page for stub templates.

Also, the cat was inside includeonly tags, not inside the noinclude tags. Why include the template itself in the category? Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks for the teachin'. —G716 <^T·_C> 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I hope) Could you check and then delete the /doc page? Thanks—G716 <^T·_C> 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Stub[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. Maybe go ahead and speedy delete it if we can, and I can propose it the right way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-geo-stub[edit]

Re: [1] If geo-stub is for locations only, what is the more general stub for other geography topics? I cannot find it. Also, I borrowed the wording from other country geo-stubs. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ireland-geo-stub. I chose it somewhat randomly as it was an easy click from the notice on Template talk:Canada-geo-stub when I wondered about changing the wording due to the request at WP:CANTALK and assumed (wrongly I guess) that it was standard. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking briefly at Category:Europe geography stubs with pop-ups, it appears there are several more. I wonder, in hindsight, if it would have been better to have moved all the stub templates to -place-stub rather than the other way around. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once had the idea of eliminating all these stub types and just using m:DynamicPageList to sort based on the other categories already associated with the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IlyaHaykinson&diff=prev&oldid=59927081#DynamicPageList but was too lazy to pursue it. It would really make the whole thing much easier and eliminate a lot of administrating work. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But each user could make their own list as precise or general as they wish. At any rate, it was just an aside concerning the issues. I'm still too lazy to pursue it. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split Category:French film stubs[edit]

Hey Grutness I'm afraid to post this at proposals in case I get the wrong reaction. Around 640 stubs. Not quite unmanagable yet but Splitting by decade would seem sensible. French film covers about as much of film history as you can get. Upmerge the templates for the decades not viable. Propose the creation of:

Is this reasonable? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The norm is to categorise all other countries by decade but apparently America is exempt from this, France should be OK. I don't know why but the long running convention seems to be my genre for American films rather than by decade/year. I guess its to do with the large number of films. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox Churches Stu[edit]

I did not find where I have to post my response, therefore I post it on your discussion page.

I have no preference for eather Eastern Catholic or Greek Catholic. I am just discussing the stubs, not the entire problem of the churches.

If you look at church stubs you find the following type of stubs:

Anglican-church-stubs
European-church-stubs
Roman Catholic-church-stubs
United Kingdom-church-stubs
Unites States-church-stubs

and the newly added

Greek Catholic-church stubs.

I fail to understand the logic of this classification. Many Anglican churches are in the UK. In the US, anglican churches are called espiscopalian. The European church stubs lists only three Norvegian churches.

I also fail to understand why you consider that the Greek Catholic churches cannot reach 60. There are definitely more than 60 Greek Catholic Churches (or Eastern Catholic churches) in the world.

The problem is that there should be a logic in the types of stubs. Basically I consider that there should be stubs for each denomination. If there are too many churches of a certain denomination, there should be stubs for the denomination by country.

However, I find that denying any denomination the right to have its own group is discriminatory and could even be considered offensive or denigratory by some. You can either accept all faiths or reject the classification by denomination and use a geographic one. But you can't logically have it both ways.Afil (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Arctic-stub}}[edit]

Grutness, I hadn't been aware of that dialogue. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I just want to clarify, though, that not all Nunavut geo articles fall within the Arctic so not all Nunavut geo stubs are equivalent to an Arctic stub... only those landforms that are north of 66.33 are within the scope of the Arctic, right? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see/sea (sic)[edit]

Hope you get the tortuous pun - very good to see the existence of the marine geography stub - have been trying to get some indian ocean holes (gawd another set of puns possible there) - sorted out and the place is a mess (or should that be gyre) ill get out of your way - good to sea the hard work being done! Satu Suro 01:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nunavut-geo-stub}}[edit]

What is the correct wording for this? Isn't it supposed to say "This Nunavut location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." or "This article about a location in..."? See also {{Newfoundland-geo-stub}}, {{NorthwestTerritories-geo-stub}}, {{NovaScotia-geo-stub}}, {{Ontario-geo-stub}}, {{Quebec-geo-stub}} and {{Yukon-geo-stub}}. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the ones I listed all say geographical, which to me, suggests geography only. I was thinking of Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Question and this followd by this. It's not too bad here right now. Very mild, it's been September weather in October with temperatures 5 to 10 C above normal. We had 5 cm snow which then melted, mud again. We have snow now and it looks like it will stay. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't too sure so I didn't want to change them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanology stub[edit]

Could you please explain why you are removing this? I'd suggest an edit summary would help - as a minimum. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's (she's?) removing them because they're not really stubs anymore, even though they're still quite small. I dropped by here to ask Grutness if he could also change the ratings on the WP:Volcanoes talkpage template so the respective generated stub-categories will coincide; many which are no longer stub class in WP:Volcanoes terms might still be considered as stubs (for lack of information) in WP:Canada and other projects.Skookum1 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're still stubs, but as explained elsewhere (e.,g., at the top of Category:Volcanology stubs and on the WP Volcanoes talk page) indivisual volcanoes shopuldn't be marked with {{volcanology-stub}}, which is only for the actual science of volcanology, not for the volcanoes themselves. This is in line with other similar stub types, such as those for glaciology, oceanography, topography, and the like, and stops the category from being completely swamped with landforms. As to changing the ratings, since I don't know exactly what criteria WP Volcanoes uses for those ratings (I'm not part of that wikiproject; I'm working from WikiProject Stub sorting), I'd prefer not to touch them - in any case, nearly 90% of the re-sorting's been done now. Grutness...wha? 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not active in WP:Volcanoes but perhaps {{volcano-stub}} would be useful for mountains/features that are volcanic.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - geo-stubs are always subdivided by location,. never by landform type - there's no mountain-stub, town-stub river-stub or any other stub of that nature. The reasons are two-fold. Firstly, everywhere on the planet can be easily and neatly divided up by location, whereas if we divided by landform there'd be always a handful of stubs that were of unique landform types that would have to go into an "everything else" category. Secondly, for most landform types, the editors most likely to improve articles are locals - those who live close to those landforms. As such, grouping items by location makes far more sense. I'll admit that for things like volcanoes, where there are specific groups of editors with specialist knowledgge, it might make sense for a separate stub type for a particular landform type - but in those cases there's almost always a relevant WikiProject already using a talk page template in order to rate all relevant articles (as there is with WP Volcanoes), in which case creating a stub type as well is simply doubling up the work. Grutness...wha? 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion[edit]

I don't know what all of this means when I already had to go through a SFD when you listed it for deletion last year and everything seemed dealt with. I really don't feel that one comment on the discussion is a consensus, especially when there was no comment at all in the history of the template or category and no comment on my talk page (as I am the primary author of both template and category). I've undone your deletion for all of the above reasons. The next time these things are brought up for deletion, some notification should be made to the author (me).—Ry?lóng (?龙) 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were three comments, not one, to start with. And certainly circumstances can change enough for something to be listed for deletion for a second time - many articles are listed for deletion three, four, or more times. But you're right that you should have been notified - that's what {{sfdnotify1}} is for. However, it likely would have made no difference considering the number of stubs using the template (nowhere near the required 60, despite the length of time it's been in use. I shall re-list it for deletion, so hopefully we'll get to see both sides of the argument. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell is there a necessary amount of articles to fill a stub category? Why does it even matter? It's just for sorting things out based on size. I really disagree that this should be listed for deletion at all. And the fact that these things have to go through this asinine process a third time is ridiculous.—Ry?lóng (?龙) 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep it seemly. There is no need to swear, just as there was no need to launch that unprovoked attack at WP:SFD. You're supposed to be an admin - please act like one. You're right that it is ridiculous that we had to go through this a third time, and if you had been notified last time then this could have been cleared up then. indeed, if the first SFD nomination had been correctly closed, with the category being upmerged as was the consensus at the time, it wouldn't have got as far as a second nomination. As for "why is there a necessary amount of articles?", while it's true that Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, it's perfectly acceptable for permanent categories for use by readers to be of any size, stub categories are treated differently for important and practical reasons. Stub categories are not for use by readers, they are for use by editors, who have different requirements. one of those requirements is that they can browse categories of a size that is neither too big to easily hunt down articles nor so small as to necessitate looking through dozens of categories. Categories of between 60 and 800 stubs are an optimum size for this. Anything bigger, and the task becomes too daunting. Anything smaller, and there is serious risk of an editor needing to look in a number of categories while working on a similar subject, and also a danger of a category being repeatedly deleted and re-created as it is emptied and new stubs are made. A smaller threshold for stub category creation would also lead to a likely proliferation of stub categories, increasing the workload of stub-sorters, who already have to monitor and transfer stubs into several thousand stub categories. Given the number of permcats that have 60- or more articles as a proportion of the total number of permanent categories, the number of stub categories would be likely to blow out into the tens of thousands very rapidly. This is all clearly explained elsewhere on Wikipedia, as you should well know, and it largely for that reason that there is, to use your words, an "entirely unnecessary level of bureaucracy". Sure, there's bureaucracy, but it's entirely necessary. Given the enormous number of stub types which exist on Wikipedia, it's useful for stub types to be arranged as logically as possible so that the types and names of them are clear to those who regularly sort stubs. This includes things like naming stub templates unambiguously and according to a standard naming scheme, making sure that stub category names are as analogous as possible to existing permanent category names, and trying to ensure that stub types are not split in such a way that we end up with a small number of stubs that would require an "everything else" category (for example, geography stubs are split by region; splitting them initially by city and town would mean that stubs for smaller places would fall through the cracks). The only way to keep some form of control over this process is to ask for proposals prior to creation. This allows people the opportunity to vet the stub types for any possible problems that may emerge, and also suggest alternatives that might more effectively cover the same ground while being more in keeping with existing stub splits. It may seem overly-bureaucratic to do this, but the reasons should be clear - it is the only way to try to keep any control of the available stub types, and without that control, the job of stub-sorting becomes next to impossible, as does the work of editors trying to find stubs to expand. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating my opinions in all of this. What you say is an "attack" I call a criticism of the system. I've said all I can on this topic, and I would appreciate if you did not continue to crosspost this to my talk page. This discussion need only be here.—Ry?lóng (?龙) 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is calling the attitude of stub sorters "nitpicking" an attack on the system? It is clearly an attack on your perceived attitude of individual editors, and nothing to do with the system whatsoever. Furthermore, your automatic assumption that your "comments here probably won't mean anything" either indicates that you think that think your reasons for keeping the stub type are weak ones or that you think the process is some form of kangaroo court. If you meant the former, then your support of the stub is by implication poor; if you meant the latter, then it is an attack on anyone who would take part in the discussion process. Grutness...wha? 08:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuff[edit]

Celtic nations[edit]

You're welcome to engage in the discussion points on the talk, but please do not revert sourced material until you have done so. Placing an unsourced version back in, a version which is clearly a prejudice attack against the people of England and also lacks sources is clearly not appropriate. There is no sense in reverting a sourced edit which is perfectly in following with Wikipedia policy. Its sourced, from neutral sources: such as those for the language stats, and the organisations who claim there are "six Celtic nations". Also the request for citation tags in the Roman part, where minority Welsh secessionists try to rob English people of their Celtic history, is essential. Another user on the talk has said they agree with the edit points... even you have to an extent, so I'm confused as to why you decide to put back the anti-English version? - Voice of the Walk (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amuri, New Zealand[edit]

I'm confused! Although Amuri is the name of a former county council based at Culverden, I cannot locate (in either smaps nor google maps) a settlement named Amuri. Can you furnish evidence, or should I put the article up for deletion? dramatic (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I decided that there is sufficient reference material about the Amuri County which existed prior to 1989 that I could rewrite the article to be about that. dramatic (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please?[edit]

Hi Grutness, Fellow Dunedinite (is that a word?) here. I've been creating some pages while supposed to be studying (damn university). Would you mind looking over some of them? Tinui Cumberland College Rathkeale College Past, Present, Future (album) Dracophyllum recurvum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gintyfrench (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar (noved to usrser page)[edit]

Why thank you! :) Grutness...wha? 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one who contributed... (i used to wonder to myself as i added them - do we really need a mountain project and volcanology tag for every indonesian volcano... - it looked good :( - my compulsion albeit truncated by permanent distraction is to assess all the bloody unassessed indonesian articles - very unlikely before 2010 :( - or even more weirdly personally manually go wpnz class NA for every untagged NZ project cat page Satu Suro 13:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers - sleep well, thanks and happy stubbing Satu Suro 13:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Hi Grutness, I was monkeying around with my talk page archive yesterday and realized that in all the opera stub melee, I forgot to thank you for my barnstar. :-( So thank you! It was very kind of you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]