User talk:Grutness/archive26

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

Stubstuff

Thanks for the advice

But I was heading back to fix the hierarchy towards the stub-templates and then adding to proposals, because some of them were adding articles into other categories, but those categories aren't redudant as you specify, they have solely distinct functions, like the hip-hop stubs templates, and you mentioned about convetion, but it seems that there is currently a lot of categories under the specification of group instead of band. Take a look at Musical groups

Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you don't know, musical band is VERY different from musical group.

You know, every band is a group, but every group isn't a band. Because group recalls duo, trio, quartet or quintet and band isn't duo and every member of an especific band has an especific function. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.

Thought you might be interested, stub proposals

Seeing as how you seem to be a stub expert, I am hoping for your opinion. Hopefully I did this right... (this is a copy-and paste from my Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games post)

I have propsed new stub categories for Atari, Take Two, Ubisoft, and Sony Computer Entertainment. See the proposals here.

I have proposed the following stub category name changes (see the proposals here):

{{Warcraft-stub}} / Category:Warcraft stubs to {{Blizzard-Entertainment-stub}} and Category:Vivindi Games stubs (keeping a Blizzard template for Blizzard games, that go into the Vivendi category)
{{ElderScrolls-stub}} / Category:The Elder Scrolls stubs to {{Bethesda-Softworks-stub}} and Category:Bethesda-Softworks-stubs
{{Doom-stub}} / Category:Doom stubs to {{[[Template::Id-Software-stub|:Id-Software-stub]]}} and Category:Id-Software-stubs
{{Rareware-stub}} / Category:Rareware stubs to Template:Microsoft-videogame-stub and Category:Microsoft videogame stubs
{{Maxis-stub}} / Category:Maxis stubs to {{EA-videogame-stub}} and Category:Electronic Arts stubs

Stub template advice

Replied on my talk page. Thanks! Oh, the optimum size for a stub category? Zero articles (after they've all been expanded from stub size)! :-) Carcharoth 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is going to be used for the Serial Killer task force that is under construction under the Criminal Biography project. How would one go about correctly getting the stub approved? Thanks, Jmm6f488 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Grutness...wha?

Sorry. I'll try to be more careful. ^Touro Osteopathic Freak ^T 02:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'd like to create an info box like this example, as a template for easy adding. Can I request some like this be a template?

Andrew Taylor Still
This article is part of the Osteopathic Medicine series of articles.
Osteopathic Medicine Article Index

replied Grutness...wha?

Castle and palace stubs

Not like there is any interest (...), but do you think I can go ahead and (re)create the stubs?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

logic stub issue

At this point, both the logic and mathlogic stub appear to be meaningful to both sides at the very least. The "math" people have been adding to the logic stub category. I have incorporated both into the navigation template of the project. Perhaps a motion to delay any deletion for a month?

Thanks for your attention to the issue btw.

Be well,Gregbard 04:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videogame stubs...

Question: Shouldn't these proposals (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/July#New_videogame_subtypes) be closed by now? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And would it be okay if I just created them now? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied. Grutness...wha?

Reply replied to. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting

Hello my old friend! I would like to ask you when a geo-stub deserves its own category. I would like also to propose a split of {{Czech-geo-stub}} into 13 stubs based on primary administrative subdivision of the country. Right now we have only {{CentralBohemia-geo-stub}}, {{SouthBohemia-geo-stub}} and {{MoraviaSilesia-geo-stub}} created by Alai year ago. What do you think? Thanks pal. :) - Darwinek 06:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Darwinek! Long time no hear :) Category:Czech Republic geography stubs is getting close to the sort of level where splitting seems a good idea - 800 is regarded as the usual splittable level, and it has just under 700. What is happening with quite a few countries, though, is that upmerged templates are being made for subnational regions, and that would probably be a good proposal for you to make at WP:WSS/P. That way, we can assess exactly how many stubs there are for each subdivision. Any which have more than about 60 stubs would be very likely candidates for separate categories. Any others would stay in the main category, it'll make it easier to split them out if and when they get to the 60 stub level. Grutness...wha?

Hello. Done, I proposed a split, however I am not an expert in stub sorting, so feel free to alter wording of my proposal or add some expert comment. Thanks. :) - Darwinek 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fashion-company-stub again

I have waited but not seen any more response from you or anyone else on this, so I suppose I'll just go about moving articles to this stub category again. I asume you don't mind. -*Ulla* 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. No-one's objected, and the only problem was the category name, which has been fixed. Go for it :) Grutness...wha?

Subdivisions vs. landforms

As the arch-proponent of splitting geo-stubs by subdivision, and detractor of splitting them by landform, perhaps you could have a word with Afil, who it seems has been busy "unsorting" the numerous rivers in Category:Romania stubs, and indeed vocally objecting to them having been sorted in the first place. Alai 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear first of all on why I was vocal. After working for over one month on the project and posting several hundred articles if not more, I finally find out that there have been changes made without the courtesy of being informed about the changes. Actually it is more than a simple lack of courtesy, because if I am doing something wrong, and nobody tells me that what I am doing is wrong, I will inevitably repeat the errors. This might explain my reaction. The normal procedure would have been to communicate first, which robots unfortunately do not do. And if nobody explains what is wrong, the issue is not that I revert to the old form, the main issue is that I will continue to present articles in the wrong way.

I would like to raise a question. The issue is that rivers have a certain length and have a tendency of flowing from one administrative unit to another. Therefore, they will be included in more categories as the split into administrative units goes further. Your comments don't say if it is acceptable to have seven or ten stub categories for the same article because the river crosses seven or ten administrative units. I still don't know how many articles are acceptable for a stub category. I understand your preference for splitting stubs by subdivisions even if I don't totally agree. But even in accepting this principle, we can reach an excessive number of articles in one stub category. In this case should we not further subdivide the units to keep the number manageable? Therefore even if we accept the principle of administrative units it would be better to design the system and to select the units so as to maintain an acceptable number of articles in each stub category.

What I still don't understand, is why we must have a single stub category. Why could we not have a stub category which subdivides the articles by subunits (as you prefer) and another stub category which uses another criterion? The articles categories are not limited, the same article can be part of several categories. Why can we not have the same principle for stubs? Your comment that stub categories are meant for editors is only part of the explanation. There are several editors and their needs might not coincide; some could prefer one type of classification and others another one. Editors are generally concerned by several fields of activity. In the case we are discussing, rivers are no doubs a geographical feature. However, there are other professions, such engineers or environmentalist, which look at rivers from a different point of view. If we have more than one type of stub classification we could satisfy the needs of various categories of editors.

The last issue I would like to raise is that we should be exchanging the information such as this more frequently. Wikipedia is a worldwide project covering over 100 languages. The project of Romanian rivers was initiated in the Ro:wiki where I am an administrator. The English version is intended to be an improved version of the Romanian one. How can we get a common approach is instead of informing each other about our views, some of us are bullied by others.

The issue of the entire dispute is the lack of communication. I am sure that if we talk, we can also understand each other. If we don't, we might never guess what the other person wants.Afil 01:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I think that everything has been clarified. I will try to find a way of splitting the stub categories so as not to exceed the recommended 800 articles. I consider that your suggestion of hierarchical categories is especially welcome, as it does not require the county level to be uses for all cases (i.e. there might be another way of subdiving if, for some reason some counties have only 3 articles. I prefer using common sense than automatic systems which may not be suitable in some cases. I think there is no more dispute over the matter. Thanks again.Afil 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic geo stubs

Hello! I have sorted Czech-geo-stub articles to substubs, it is almost complete. Please, look at subsequent stub templates and decide which deserve own category. Thanks. - Darwinek 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :). I will try to sort more stub articles out. I have also a question for you. Would it be possible to merge {{Chrudim-geo-stub}} and {{PardubiceDistrict-geo-stub}} to {{Pardubice-geo-stub}} ? Chrudim District and Pardubice District are a second-level subdivisions of the Czech Republic. More, Districts were cancelled several years ago, new, more detailed subdivision is being implemented. As you know, Czech Republic is a small country and we (me and several other Czech Rep. editors here) think it is sufficient to have geo-stubs only for Czech Rep. Regions. - Darwinek 10:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Region stubs

Hello again! I would really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/July#Merge_of_stub_types_entering_Cat:Hunter_region_geography_stubs, as it has been open soverylong. Cheers!. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRNC-stub

Is it deliberate that you only protected the -geo template but not TRNC-stub? Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that had already been protected by whoever deleted in after SFD. Grutness...wha?

The protection doesn't seem to be activated. I can still edit it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, just to be sure I understand you right regarding the -politician templates; I presume that your post means that I don't have to do a count for all the potential <country>-politician-stub templates? Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That;s pretty much right. If they're only upmerged templates, a count's nowhere near as important as for separate categories, and if the scheme's to have one for every country anyway, then a count's not really needed. Grutness...wha?

Category:Southeast Asia geography stubs

Was this empty when you deleted it? There were 60+ stubs "in" it a short while ago, despite now being a redlink. Re-editing the upmerged templates has cleared it out, now. (And I keep being told that "performance issues" with the job queue are just the product of a fevered mind...) Alai 01:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the templates and deleted the category two days ago. Surely the template link should have resorted things before now... sigh. Just like the old days with null-editing. :/ Grutness...wha?

It's fixed now, it just required a re-edit of the templates. I generally wait until the category is actually empty, for just such contingencies. (I don't think it can have been waiting in the queue for that long, so I assume it must have "fallen off" at some point. Not that I know anything about the implementation of that, as the devs are quick to point out whenever anyone dast comment on the matter...) Alai 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuff

Glen Osbourne

Regardsing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Osbourne. I have updated the article, infobox and a few citations. The article should pass WP:BIO Athlete now. However it's still pretty poor on citation. Still depends on what you want to vote on it. But being that he competed in ECW and ECWA is passable for WP:BIO Athlete and being that he won belts, should be fairly notable in professional wrestling terms. Your thoughts are welcome know. Govvy 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blank maps

Hi Grutness. You recently linked me some blank NZ maps I had been asking for. However, I'd really need one that is a bit more detailed in the Fiordland area, i.e. a larger scale one. From looking at the blank South Island map, it seems that it may have been saved from a much larger one (Lake Wakatipu looks a bit like a jpg-blurring?). So would you by any chance have such a larger map, or a cutout of the Fiordland-Queenstown area? With the crappy software I have here at home I can't even 'trace' another map, because none of my programs is able to do layers (tells you how much you got used to what you have access to at work...) Ingolfson 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I have recently undergone a Wiki-namechange ;-)

I've uploaded one as Image:NZ-SSI template.jpg. It's a bit rough and will need a little bit of tidying around the lakes if you can - that should be possible even with fairly crude software. Hope it helps. Grutness...wha? 11:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Put that on hold for a moment, got my hands full with Western Reclamation and Auckland Harbour Bridge stuff at the moment. Crazy how things are suddenly moving here in Auckland. As for the name, lets just say the smaller the business world, the less I want to be identifiable. Clear break between work life and private Wikipedia edits (which are always going to be well cited from publically available material, but still...) Ingolfson 08:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enzy more?

Hey! I noticed you editing some Split Enz stuff. We've started a WikiProject for the Enz and for Crowded House (and all associated groups, like Betchadupa, Finn Brothers etc etc) and was wondering if you'd be interested in joining us? It's at WP:ENZ. See ya round! -- linca ^linca 03:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I noticed this being discussed at the NZ noticeboard. I won't officially join the project, but I am interested in the Enz, so don't be surprised to see my name crop up in edit summaries. BTW, to pre-empt something that may possibly arise for the project, rock-group-specific WikiProjects usually find it far better to use talk page banner templates rather than stub templates specific to the band, and band-specific stub types are generally frowned on at WikiProject Stub sorting, the project I do most of my work here for). So if a stub type is suggested, I'd recommend going for something like {{WPBeatles}} instead. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Grutness' Day!

Grutness has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Grutness's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Grutness!

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Love,
Phaedriel
09:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Grutness, after the charming message and the lovely gift you so graciously greanted me a couple of days ago, I've struggled over and over with my limited imagination to find the appropriate way of thanking you... only to realize nothing I could ever say would do justice to the wonderful work you've so earnestly done for years, and the beautiful person that you are. You may not believe me, you may not even remember it, but I remember like it was yesterday when, in my days as a newbie when I monumentally messed up with a stub template, and you kindly, patiently explained this clumsy friend of yours here why she was wrong. We need more people like you - we desperately long for the beauty and the light that you gift us every day. May this little, humble recognition be a token of my admiration and my gratitude to you. Enjoy your Day, my friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 09:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful surprise! I'm... speechless (no mean feat!) - and blushing, too :) I wish I could always be kind and patient; I know that too often I come across as quite the opposite. I try to be Hawkeye Pierce and end up more like Gregory House :) You, on the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen a bad word either from or about. Thank you once again and - as I see from the message above my reply - Happy Birthday, too! Grutness...wha? 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay for Grutness! Giggy _U^CP 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops

Sorry about this [1] -- I should have checked more carefully. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa'lright - easy enough for that sort of thing to happen :) Grutness...wha? 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw you on Special:Newpages

Giggy ^{Talk Review} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[2] - I randomly clicked on the project space list of newpages (with the namespace changer at the top), and that edit was the first on the list! Thus, you win my "random award for people I know who I've seen at newpages" award. Congratulations :) Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah, the wonders of WP...what will they think of next (probably this :P). Giggy ^{Talk | Delete} 07:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanshan

Hello Grutness, I am very sorry. That was a mistaken revert; I probably reverted your edit instead of some vandalism. You are completely right to add the PR China template, please accept my apologies. Hope the stub sorting is going well, Neranei (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing to you too, I clicked on the wrong rollback link. Good luck stub sorting! :) Neranei (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile


Lights has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Cheers, Lig hts 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ngati Ruanui /stub

Kia ora Grutness. As you are an expert on stubs, would you mind commenting on a discussion I am having about Ngāti Ruanui - User:Liveste removed the Maori stub tag from the page, I put it back because it looks like a stub to me, and he has queried this on my talk and I have replied to on his talk. Sorry that's a bit of a complicated chain to follow. Cheers man. Kahuroa 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50k

We've had a discussion about that on the village pump; basically, Wikipedia has way too many essays, and the clutter is confusing people and making the concept rather meaningless. Hence the suggestion of userfying essays that are basically written by one person, and relatively unused. I don't really agree that your essay is widely used, because it's only linked from a handful of AFDs, and has had very little dialog on the talk page. For instance, WP:AADD has a 200k talk page, and a couple hundred pages' worth of whatlinkshere. HTH! >Radiant< 09:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]