Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions/Redraft2

Proposed improvements in this redrafting phase

Below are the proposed improvements (so far) saved from Redraft Phase 1 (either from the document itself - most of these are identified by HTML comments in the current draft, as of this writing), or from Redraft1's talk page. Feel free to add more, or to strike any out if they are controversial to you in any way, in which case it would probably be better for us to defer them for debate in Phase 3.

• Rename document "Naming conventions" per previous discussion; create new shortcut to WP:WSS/NC, but preserve the old NG one as well.
• Rename "major component" and "subdivisional" component to something more intuitive. Initial suggestion: major ⇒ basic, and subdivisional ⇒ topical. Conforming edits might need to be made to Wikipedia:Overcategorization.
• Strongly discourage the creation of new high-level stubs (i.e. "major components") without WSS/P consensus. I.e. prevent things like "1ps-stub", "Nintendo-1ps-stub", etc., for first-person shooter videogames. This is actually mentioned in two of the HTML comments.
• Fill in 2 examples, presently marked with "EXAMPLE HERE".
• Complete the list of major components, and change the wording in that section to no longer say it is incomplete.
• Update the "subdivisional" component section to no longer say it is "mostly geographical"; this hasn't been true for a while. Should still mention it of course, as one of several examples of subdivisional/topical component types/hierarchies.
• Clarify whether abbreviation, acronymization, "squishing" and/or cominbations thereof are generally encouraged or deprecated. Requires a consensus discussion as to how to proceed.
• Actively discourage the creation of new acronymic stub template names, so that the list of them in this naming conventions document doesn't have to keep growing. (Part of consensus discussion just mentioned).
• Clarify that diacritics are (usally? or always?) dropped in stub template names. Requires a consensus discussion as to how to proceed.
• Rename templates so that this mess can be simplified: *Taiwan, or ROC (or RoC, or Roc) - Republic of China (Taiwan, Chinese Taipei)
• Ditto: **Czech (or Cz) - Czech Republic/Czechia
• Ditto: *NZ (or Kiwi) - New Zealand
• Drastically clarify the "Stub template redirects" section to make it clear when they are appropriate and when not. Requires a consensus discussion as to how to proceed.
• Ensure that the "Abbreviations" section under "Categories" gibes with what WP:CFD has to say on the matter, and defer to CfD's preferences on the issue.
• Add that ambiguous subnational region names should use the form NameDigraph-geo-stub (e.g., PunjabPK-geo-stub, PunjabIN-geo-stub). Also GeorgiaUS-geo-stub? Consensus discussion might be needed here.

That's all I can think of. Please note that I am studiously avoiding anything obviously contentious such as the sport/sports issue. Saving for Phase 3. Phase 2, in my view, should be nothing but patching obvious problems no one is likely to have any objection about.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. A few thoughts [broken out into separate topics, below.] Grutness...wha? 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics

Diacritics are not used for the templates themselves (not all browsers can handle them). I think they may be used for some redirects. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Two reactions: a) Given that this is en.wiki.x.io and English doesn't use diacritics at all anymore since the effective demise of rôle and coöperate, why not just nuke them all since we're abbreviating and stuff anyway; and b) (contrariwise) if we're to keep some of them, the redir section should explain why and make it plain why/when/where such exceptions are made. I lean strongly toward version A. These aren't article titles, they are stub template names and we are already (I think) agreeing they are a bit shorthand when warranted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Call me an old fogey if you will, but I still use diacritics in English, as do a lot of people who use UK/Commonwealth English (they still have a rôle in my view, even though it may be regarded as passé to use them). From a NZ point of view, they're also used a lot in loan words from Māori - and I'm sure other countries with two national languages face the same situation. Also, since a lot of geo-stubs are for placename which do use them in titles of articles, such as eastern European subnational splits, it makes sense that they're still around. I'd lean towards B, where diacriticals are not used in the templates, but redirects with them are only used for non-English place names and loan words where using diacriticals is standard (I can live without those where it's optional :). Grutness...wha? 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can buy that. I now lean toward ver. B. Would the "real" stub name, vs. the redir, be the one with or without the diacritics? With, I would think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Acronym redirects

The oddly named redirects (RoC, kiwi, Cz) are slowly dwindling in usage - a bot can probably remove the remainder of pages which use them. One of the RoC variants might be worth keeping, the others can probably be deleted without much concern. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be quite happy to AWB my butt off and just get rid of them all. I could live with a short list of exceptions (UK, US, etc.), but a list of exceptions that have exceptions is more recursion than we should have to deal with. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Geographic disambiguation

The SubregionDiacritical-geo-stub is pretty standard (there are several others that use them: LimburgNL-geo-stub and CanterburyNZ-geo-stub are two I can think of). It may be worth noting though that GeorgiaUS-geo-stub is for the subnational region but - since it is a sovereign nation - Georgia-geo-stub doesn't use one. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The Georgia distinction may well be a great example to use in the text, and I'm glad other examples of the RegionDigraph[-foo]-stub type are in evidence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Acronym/abbrev. stub names

My personal opinion on acronyms and abbreviations is that if the acronym or abbreviation leads to a WP article on a subject, then it's fine. if it leads to a disambiguation page, then it isn't. For example - BBC-stub is fine, since BBC is a redirect to British Broadcasting Corporation; BA-stub is not fine, since BA is a disambiguation page. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That made great sense to me at first and then didn't, because the situation can change. New dab pages are needed literally every single day. This criterion won't work for very long at all, though I see where it was coming from. This could be wandering into an area of contention better saved for Phase 3 revamping, as I have some larger issues with the abbreviatating and squishing practices. Not sure just yet. Would be happy to defer this if it seems warranted. If it's not too commingled with the larger issue, I'm still not quite sure where to go with it. The concept of "strong marks" from trademark law seems relevant (i.e. only IBM and 3M will ever be IBM or 3M; if I start a band called the Immiment Botulism Mechanics or the Minutiae Metering Men, and try to use acronyms to refer to my bands that infringe on those marks, I can expect to get me happy arse sued off, and lose those cases (under US trademark law, anyway). But Wikipedia is WP:NOT WIPO. I dunno. It seems safer to me to effectively "ban" abbreviations unless consensus says go for it in those cases. "NZ" is "weird" enough that conflicts are not likely to arise. "NI" seems far less so. Yet I wouldn't really want to force everyone to write "Northern-Ireland-" (or "NorthernIreland-" which I have different problems with not raised here; a Phase 3 issue...) BUT, at least the meaning is clear, even if longwinded. What about N.-Ireland or NIreland? etc.... It's a thorny issue. Again I'd be happy to call this one contentious and save it for Phase 3 and make Phase 2 proceed rapidly apace without addressing it but fixing everything else ID'd above as needing fixing.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)