Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions

message: In the interest of centralizing the discussion, please bring the discussion of  and its relatives here. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, not under that topic, please.  It is too binary and adversarial.  The issue has already been far, far too polarized.  I'm presently thinking on a more flexible way to address the topic, maybe/maybe not with specific WSS/NG revision ideas. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Went a completely different route.  I think that  these sorts of angsty issues ought to be dealt with somewhere around the 3rd level of re-drafting of this document; won't even touch them right now.  Instead I produced re-draft level 1, detailed below! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular vs plural 

message: Its become clear to me after being on this Wikiproject for a while, and trying to actually use it as a general Wikipedian more recently, that WSS/NG is is sore need of a total overhaul:
*It is outdated
*It is confusing
*It is open to misinterpretation
*It is open to differing but equally valid interpretations
*It isn't finished
*It would never survive the WP Guideline Proposal process
*It is directly generative of strife and discord
*among other problems.
Rather than just start editing it with my views on how it should work, and engaging in a load of argumentation, I'm proposing a totally different route.  The back-and-forth editing and kvetching-on-the-talk-page process can work when editing a "live" guideline or other document, and even when it works poorly (cf. WP:N from Nov. 2006 - Jan. 2007) it can still produce good results (compare WP:N of Oct. 31, 2006, to the present version! Wow, what a difference.)  But it's a slow, antagonistic, painful process, that mingles basic horse-sense edits in with highly controversial changes, and pits gnomes against opinion warriors.
Instead, I think this should be undertaken in clearly defined stages, and be done in draft copies of the real projectpage, which when consensus is reached on the current draft, the "live" page can be replaced with that draft, a new stage discussed and planned, and another draft begun starting with the text of the previous one, to achieve the goals for the next stage, and so on, until a very solid document is arrived at, reflects broad consensus, and is ready to become a real Guideline.
The first stage is obviously Cleanup.  It calls for a total moratorium on substantive changes, i.e. changes to the nature, specifics, intent, purpose, scope, etc. of the document and the process it documents.  It will be tempting to say "hey, while we're at it, let's fix this", or "I don't agree with this bit at all, and think instead it should require that", or "maybe we should expand this to include..."  This temptation must be resisted or this process won't work, and the experiment will fail.
I, like the rest of us (or we wouldn't be in WSS!) get tired of "someone ought to...", "I wish it was like...", "why isn't this better?" kind of thinking.  So I've just gone and done it.  
The resulting first re-draft is a total overhaul, in almost every way.  Yet (unless I made a mistake) has not changed any of the sorts of things under the moratorium (the closest it comes is that it replaced a totally implausible justification for something with a plausible one, without changing the "something").  Every major change has been documented here in great detail, so that the process and reasoning for the changes are independently clear (which is very rarely the case when someone makes a major edit to a "live" document).  The goal was to take an old '72 beater and do the bodywork to turn it into a hot rod (on the ouside; haven't touched the engine at all, and it runs exactly as it did before, but will just turn heads now).  Aside from inevitable quibbles, I think WSS at large will really like it.
Process: Please read it over, preferably after or while looking over the log of edits, fix up issues you see with it without making any substantive changes to its guts, and at some point hopefully soon, we can have a formal or informal consensus discussion about making it go "live".  Discussions of process, or even the merits of the entire "WSS/NC 2.0" idea I'm proposing belong here, I would suggest, while those regarding the particulars of the new draft should go to its talk page.
PS: I would offer that the 2nd stage will be basic policy-functionality improvements that are not controversial (there are HTML comment notes in the source code suggesting some of those improvements); the 3rd, resolution of the controversial bits (such as mentioned on WSS/NC's talk page and which are raised, including by me, at WSS/P and WP:SFD); and the 4th, Guideline Proposal.  I believe that getting this document to the level of a Wikipedia Guideline is very important.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A perspective note: I did this redraft while pretending it was a copyediting job from a commercial client, a really good client, whose flagship product I felt disagreeable about in some aspects, and that I was not empowered in any way to change any facts, marketing strategies, intent of spin, slogans, or other pre-determined aspects, only copyedit to present the facts, distill the marketing strategies, wordsmith the spindoctoring, and highlight the slogans.  Try it! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Working on it now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redrafting, stage 1

message: Since there's no disagreement here or at the first re-draft's talk page I plan to replace the content of the "live" WSS/NG with the first re-draft within the next day (and without the "let's fix this" HTML comments in it).  I think this will be a good step forward for WSS and it will enable the next round of naming convention improvements to proceed post haste.  Huzzah! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on it now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Given no objections, let's make current re-draft go "live"

message: At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines/Redraft2 I have listed a bunch of unlikely-to-be-controversial improvements for the NG document.  Most of these were already clearly identified in Redraft1 as HTML comments, while a few come from Redraft 1 discussion.  The HTML comments just mentioned are still (as of this writing) present in Redraft2, to indicate likely insertion points.  Depending on when you read this, some of them may have alread been replaced with new text, or removed because controversial.  I would propose that any item on the list that anyone feels is controversial in any way should be struck out and saved for Redraft Phase 3, the dealing with controversial stuff.  Several of them may require a consensus discussion to determine what exactly they should say/advise.  Let's do it! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's pitched a fit about this. I suggest that the current draft #2 and the current real page can be merged pretty easily, and taht draft #3, forthcoming, would resolve the issue below and some other non-controversial bits, leaving only (ta-DAAA) a debate about contentious details like sport vs. sports and other bones to pick (and see WP:SFD - I for one am much less contentious about some of those points). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redrafting, stage 2

message: Seeing as how this gets discussed at SFD seemingly constantly, I thought I'd bring it up officially here.  In creating categories, is the country considered an adjective or a noun?  I've created a table with a bunch of different examples to illustrate.
Ex. #	Permcat	Stub cat (noun)	Stub cat (adjective)
1a   	       	               	
1b   	       	               	
1c   	       	               	
1d   	       	               	
2a   	       	               	
2b   	       	               	
2c   	       	               	
2d   	       	               	
3a   	       	               	
3b   	       	               	
3c   	       	               	
3d   	       	               	
*Example 1 shows a country with a fairly common adjective form.
*Example 2 shows a country with a less common adjective form.  Still guessable, but not as obvious.
*Example 3 shows a country with a very rare adjective form.  This is not guessable.
*Examples (a) show the base country cat.  Following the permcat is easy in this case.  We just add "stubs" to the end.
*Examples (b) show a permcat that uses the adjective form.  Following the permcat is easy in this case as well.  We just add "stubs" to the end.
*Examples (c) show a geography-related permcat that uses the noun form at the end.
*Examples (d) show a non-geography-related permcat that uses the noun form at the end.
Examples (c) and (d) (at least in Example 1) show that we are interpreting the "<blah> of/in <country noun>" permcat differently.
The question is: Which is more important?
#Following the permcat and using the noun forms?
#Being consistent with other stub cats and using the adjective forms?
===Idea #1===
*"<country noun> <blah>" permcats → "<country noun> <blah> stubs"
*"<country adjective> <blah>" permcats → "<country adjective> <blah> stubs"
*"<blah> in/of <country noun>" permcats → "<country noun> <blah> stubs"
This would seem to create the most consistency with the permcats.  While, it does not create 100% consistency among all stub cats, at least all stub cats of the same type (history, geography, etc) will be internally consistent.
===Idea #2===
*"<country noun> <blah>" permcats → "<country noun> <blah> stubs"
*"<country adjective> <blah>" permcats → "<country adjective> <blah> stubs"
*"<blah> in/of <country noun>" permcats → "<country adjective> <blah> stubs"
This strays a bit from consistency with the permcats.  However, it creates stub categories that are all similar (save for high-level country stubcats, ( which can remain as they are).
===Idea #3===
(Proposed by Caerwine)
*"<country noun> <blah>" permcats → "<country noun> <blah> stubs"
*"<country adjective> <blah>" permcats → "<country adjective> <blah> stubs"
*"<blah> in/of <country noun>" permcats → "<blah> in/of <country noun> stubs"
This creates the most consistency with the permcats.  While some people would find the construction  awkward because it requires context to know whether it is a category for stub articles about the History of Canada or a category for article about the history of stub articles about Canada, the fact is that the context here and in all similar cases is blindingly obvious.
===Discussion===
I marginally prefer idea #2 because it creates consistent stubcats.  Permcats often change, so it may be hard to keep up with their naming convention.  As long as each stubcat is still linked to the appropriate permcat (using ), then we're okay. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That didn't entirely parse. Grutness prefers #1 over #2; Amalas preferred #2. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed so that it parses. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like this was simply an early mistake (or different way of thinking), and that rectifying it can be done by a bot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would mean a lot of bot-work, but if we can fix on one of these three options as the convention then a blanket nomination (and it wouldn't just be for the geo- categories!) probably wouldn't cause much fuss in itself - it's just the changeover that would be a pest (but no worse than removing all those "-related"s a year or so back). I suggest that we should advertise that this discussion is going on with some kind of infobox on WP:SFD, though (perhaps like the one being used for the NOR policy change which is appearing on watchlists at the moment). Grutness...wha? 02:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a cat rename cannot be done by bot easily.  The new name would have to be created and the old name deleted.  Very time consuming.  But, I imagine no matter which way we choose, there will need to be a massive rename, so that point is pretty well moot anyway. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer option 1, myself. Option 2 has the problems with unguessable adjectives, and option 3 just sounds clunky and confusing. Crystallina 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate?  I don't understand what you mean by "clunky and confusing" with regard to #3, which to me seems the simplest and most straightforward.  Maybe you are thinking of hypothetical examples that haven't occurred to me or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For me it's pretty much tie with options #1 and #2. Monni 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I suggest that we should prefer <country noun> formats, whether those are of the "<blah> in/of <country noun>" or "<country noun> <blah>" type. Country adjectives cause problems in far too many cases: there are those such as Burkina Faso for which the adjective is obscure, and other such as the New Zealand and the Democratic Republic of the Congo where there is apparently no adjectival form.  Then there are those for which the commonly-used adjective is inaccurate, e.g. British for the United Kingdom. So I'm favour of whatever solution which gets rid of the greatest number of adjectival categories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries: adjective or noun? 

message: I marginally prefer idea #2 because it creates consistent stubcats.  Permcats often change, so it may be hard to keep up with their naming convention.  As long as each stubcat is still linked to the appropriate permcat (using ), then we're okay. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That didn't entirely parse. Grutness prefers #1 over #2; Amalas preferred #2. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed so that it parses. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like this was simply an early mistake (or different way of thinking), and that rectifying it can be done by a bot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would mean a lot of bot-work, but if we can fix on one of these three options as the convention then a blanket nomination (and it wouldn't just be for the geo- categories!) probably wouldn't cause much fuss in itself - it's just the changeover that would be a pest (but no worse than removing all those "-related"s a year or so back). I suggest that we should advertise that this discussion is going on with some kind of infobox on WP:SFD, though (perhaps like the one being used for the NOR policy change which is appearing on watchlists at the moment). Grutness...wha? 02:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a cat rename cannot be done by bot easily.  The new name would have to be created and the old name deleted.  Very time consuming.  But, I imagine no matter which way we choose, there will need to be a massive rename, so that point is pretty well moot anyway. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 13:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer option 1, myself. Option 2 has the problems with unguessable adjectives, and option 3 just sounds clunky and confusing. Crystallina 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate?  I don't understand what you mean by "clunky and confusing" with regard to #3, which to me seems the simplest and most straightforward.  Maybe you are thinking of hypothetical examples that haven't occurred to me or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For me it's pretty much tie with options #1 and #2. Monni 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I suggest that we should prefer <country noun> formats, whether those are of the "<blah> in/of <country noun>" or "<country noun> <blah>" type. Country adjectives cause problems in far too many cases: there are those such as Burkina Faso for which the adjective is obscure, and other such as the New Zealand and the Democratic Republic of the Congo where there is apparently no adjectival form.  Then there are those for which the commonly-used adjective is inaccurate, e.g. British for the United Kingdom. So I'm favour of whatever solution which gets rid of the greatest number of adjectival categories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I have read over all of the votes/discussions by everyone and have found that #3 seems to be the consensus.  I used an "approval voting" type of system, so people could in essence vote for any number of ideas they thought would work.  If anyone wants the breakdown, I can provide it.  I'm not sure what the next step is, but I'm sure it involves lots of renames at SFD.  ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: I was surprised to see  so quickly nominated for deletion. While I wasn't aware of these guidelines and related process  when I created it (they don't seem to be very well advertised), it seems to be me sensible that it should be possible to have a stub type with a 1:1 relationship with each WikiProject (in this case, WikiProject UK Waterways). A meta-category such as Project related stubs might be a useful accompaniment. Andy Mabbett 09:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs "per-project" 

message: kindly write more about Indian revolutionaries &heroes
:This is Wikiproject stub sorting, not stub writing. We sort already written stubs. If you want more articles about a specific topic, the best thing for you to do is write them. Grutness...wha? 09:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text ashish stubs 

message: Someone who can find their glasses and not have the eyestrain I'm having right now needs to read this whole thing and summarize a conclusion. The last edit on the projectpage was 19 June 2007.  We are long overdue for this proposal to be closed either with a consensus to do something, or with a "no consensus" result. And either way with the blaring yellow alert boxes on the main pages removed so people stop coming here and yawning when they realize how moribund the debate is.  >;-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a conclusion and removed all the alert boxes. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Let's face it, WP:WSS regards this page as a set of naming conventions, not simply guidelines, and the page is frequently referred to as such. Templates and categories are frequently renamed at WP:SFD in order to fit in with the standards set here, and propsals are often altered in order to fit in with this page's rules. As such, it would make far more sense for this page to "make it official" by being at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions. After all, this page has long been listed as a subpage of wikipedia:Naming conventions; as such this would simply be a formalising of that situation.
I'm fairly sure this has been raised in the past and generally supported, but I can't find referencer to the discussion (the archives of WP:WSS and all its subpages are labyrinthine, to say the least). if that is the case (and record of it can be found somewhere), then - unless there are major objections -moving this page should be done fairly soon. Grutness...wha? 07:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought theat this page was called "naming conventions" so I see no problems here. Waacstats (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well, unless there are any objections in, say the next week, I'll move the page. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing at all for or against for over six days... that's probably close enough. Moving the page... Grutness...wha? 05:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to WP:WSS/Naming conventions 

message: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC to dissolve Wikiproject Stub Sorting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of RfC affecting this page