User talk:Grutness/WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines

Suggested addition

One suggested addition: Avoid ambiguous abbreviations if possible. Unfortunately, the current stubs have several examples where this is violated, such as bio-stub, which could be either biology or biography. BlankVerse ∅ 12:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give alternatives

Rather than just enumerating exceptions, I would urge you to propose standardized alternatives for them, and to redirect the existing templates after suitable notice. Russ Blau (talk) 13:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea, though I think creating redirects will have to wait for a while as far as I'm concerned (I'm up to my eyeballs in trying to sift through the 50 new stub types discovered at th beginning of the month at the moment!).

In any case, as I said on the page itself, some of the exceptions are acceptable, simply because they are the most logical way of writing them. The others it should be fairly clear what they should be simply because of why they are exceptions (e.g., Sportbio-stub is listed as an exception for having the first two parts of its name joined together - therefore, it would make more sense if it was Sport-bio-stub).

As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happier to get this page to the point where it can be used for that very purpose, though - using it as a guide to what is an exception and how it should be fixed. I don't really see creation of a redirect as being an instant, be bold thing anyway. I'd prefer it if changing the names of stubs was debated in a similar way to creating new stubs. And again, this page should hopefully be a useful guide for that process. Grutness...wha? 14:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, sportbio-stub may be better after all. It would allow it to be split by country as per the standard secondary splits if wished. Or perhaps it should have a triple hyphenation. Or... ? Grutness...wha?

Redirects

I'm kind of new at this, so maybe I'm unaware of some technical issue. I thought that if you (or I -- I'm not suggesting you should have to do all this yourself!) moved Template:Bad stub to Tempate:Bad-stub that the old name would remain as a redirect to the new one, so that a {{bad stub}} tag would still work. If that's correct, what's wrong with being bold in renaming stub tags? --Russ Blau (talk) 14:26, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are two points here, firstly redirects cause a little more server strain, so they're not necessarily a good thing, and secondly I want to be sure that any new name is one that does fit in best with the naming scheme, and it may well be that someone will point out a mistake I've overlooked or a better option. We've recently run into a difficulty at WP:WSS with one favoured renaming scheme that went slightly wrong because the same type of name was used for two diffeent purposes (station-stub was being used for radio and TV stations, and UK-station-stub and US-station-stub were both for railway stations). So there are advantages to going through some kind of formal nming process. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Good page, but it should have a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/stub types (for examples see...), preferably in the lead section. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the last section shouldn't be called "Missing gaps", but "Missing hyphens" - as per our naming conventions ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 16:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, both of them. I'll add those. I'll also make a slight addition to the exceptions section to say that WP:WSS is actively looking at some renaming. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]