Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/October/1
October 1 edit
{{Cave-stub}} / Cat:Cave stubs edit
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete
Created recently unproposed. I've no objection to caving-stub, made at the same time as this one, but cave-stub is already causing problems with articles being removed from the geo-stub regional categories. Removing, say a NorthYorkshire-geo-stub and adding a generic cave-stub makes articles harde to find, and specific regional cave stubs would be serious overkill. The situation parallels that with climbing-stub - individual climbs are double-stubbed with climbing-stub and whatever location-specific geo-stub is appropriate - this allows editors who know a specific area to find the articles without disadvantaging editors of articles about climbing. The same situation should happen here - delete this, and double-stub with caving-stub and location-specific geo-stubs. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find an example of how this is done. Can you give a reference or drop a note into Wikipedia:WikiProject Caves? I created those stubs before reading the instructions, unfortunately, as I explained on the proposition page when it was too late. I'm at the moment pressing cavers I know (who happen to be centred around NorthYorkshire) to start getting more involved, so I am looking for whatever best works. The geo-stubs looked too cluttered and over-used and wouldn't help the people I know who have a helluva lot of citable caving literature on their shelves to get it. Non-cavers in NorthYorkshare are unlikely to have this information available and have a lot of other things to be interested in.
- I understand that stub-templates have this specific purpose of stimulating involvement. This might need more than simply throwing them into an edit box, but giving some targeted information. Since a large percentage of notable UK caves are in NorthYorkshire, is it possible to include a parameter into the NorthYorkshire-geo-stub to say it's a cave and reveal a link to somewhere where they can get hints?Goatchurch 11:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just put {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}} and {{caving-stub}} (say) on the article; it's as simple as that. I strongly agree with Grutness that shuffling these sideways out of "local" categories is not a good idea. I think it's by no means clear that only caving-specialists would have anything to contribute to such articles, and I'd go so far as so say it was unlikely, and indeed undesirable to create a "niche editors only" expectation. Please double-stub (either with cave- if that survives this discussion, or as G. suggests with caving-), and we'll have the best of both worlds. Alai 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer Goatchurch's comments, some examples can be seen at the likes of (picking three random climbing stubs) Haiku Stairs, Hillary Step, and Horse Flats. As to non-cavers not having the information, I can easily argue that, as a non-caver who has added quite a bit of information on articles about caves in my local area. Why limit the chances for editors who may have information? To put it another way - who is more likely to have information on a cave in, say, Western Australia, a caver in North Yorkshire, or a non-caver in Western Australia? There's also the fact that, while caving may be an important part of a cave's story, it isn't all of it. A cave may be involved in local history, folklore, or news - something that may not be relevant from a caver's viewpoint - and therefore the article may not give a balanced account of the cave's story. As to the suggestion of what basically amounts to a NorthYorkshire-cave-stub, how long before other prominent caving regions (such as Derbyshire or Somerset, say) start arguing for the same? It opens the door to some 1000-odd templates for caves by region worldwide - and there would then be calls for the same for rivers, mountains, and many other natural features (there have, in fact, been calls for similar for both mountains and rivers in the past). Given the size of the respective stub categories, and also our ability to keep track of what stub types there are as things stand at the moment, it's massive overkill when double-stubbing does the job just as effectively and efficiently. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How 'bout this: Crackpot, North Yorkshire using a modification of {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}} with an extra parameter. I don't think I was explaining myself with enough sense, so this is an example of what I mean. I see stubs as part of the process -- not for the final result. So the right answer is whatever encourages people to start getting involved. I entirely understand the point about non-cavers having a lot to contribute, but cavers are so far contributing practically nothing (particularly in the NorthYorkshire where I know a lot of them). We don't know the psychology in detail, but to me the NorthYorkshireStub just feels slightly exclusionary because it makes it look like some other community has already taken ownership of the article and perhaps is putting cavers off from contributing what they do know. That's why this combined panel is worth trying out for a better effect, in case the rack of "this one is ours" strips is off-putting.Goatchurch 11:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer Goatchurch's comments, some examples can be seen at the likes of (picking three random climbing stubs) Haiku Stairs, Hillary Step, and Horse Flats. As to non-cavers not having the information, I can easily argue that, as a non-caver who has added quite a bit of information on articles about caves in my local area. Why limit the chances for editors who may have information? To put it another way - who is more likely to have information on a cave in, say, Western Australia, a caver in North Yorkshire, or a non-caver in Western Australia? There's also the fact that, while caving may be an important part of a cave's story, it isn't all of it. A cave may be involved in local history, folklore, or news - something that may not be relevant from a caver's viewpoint - and therefore the article may not give a balanced account of the cave's story. As to the suggestion of what basically amounts to a NorthYorkshire-cave-stub, how long before other prominent caving regions (such as Derbyshire or Somerset, say) start arguing for the same? It opens the door to some 1000-odd templates for caves by region worldwide - and there would then be calls for the same for rivers, mountains, and many other natural features (there have, in fact, been calls for similar for both mountains and rivers in the past). Given the size of the respective stub categories, and also our ability to keep track of what stub types there are as things stand at the moment, it's massive overkill when double-stubbing does the job just as effectively and efficiently. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just put {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}} and {{caving-stub}} (say) on the article; it's as simple as that. I strongly agree with Grutness that shuffling these sideways out of "local" categories is not a good idea. I think it's by no means clear that only caving-specialists would have anything to contribute to such articles, and I'd go so far as so say it was unlikely, and indeed undesirable to create a "niche editors only" expectation. Please double-stub (either with cave- if that survives this discussion, or as G. suggests with caving-), and we'll have the best of both worlds. Alai 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stubs are never parameterised! This has been discussed at length repeatedly in the past. There is NOTHING at all that that parameterised stub does that is not done by double stubbing, except leave both WikiProject Stub sorting - and, indeed Wikipedia as a whole - open to a mess of trouble. PLEASE NEVER EVER do that again! If cavers are not contributing, use caving-stub on the articles, as explained above. There's no reason at all that having two stubs on an article should make anything exclusionary - what does it matter to caving editors that two diffrent groups can contribute to an article? You might as well say "allowing anyone to edit an article feels exclusionary". Grutness...wha? 23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when you say "never", presumably you mean aside from the proposed (and currently "pilot" implemented on 45k articles at last count) "standardisation" proposal, that passes about four parameters around, just for the laugh... Alai 03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's increasingly looking like I was misled on the purpose of that scheme :/ Grutness...wha? 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak to that, but shouldn't we concentrate on the effect, rather than the purpose (either as envisaged, or as represented)? Though right now, I suppose we should actually be concentrating on this stub type... Alai 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a logic and then there's psychology. Having personally tried to get people to edit pages in WP I can tell you that a statement says to the novice reader, "this is part of the NorthYorkshire Project" really puts you off because you know you are are not part of them and, from your position of ignorance, you will tend to believe that there is a big NorthYorkshire community out there trundling through the articles about to clamp down and flatten you. And there isn't. There's about 950 NorthYorkshire stub articles and not one of the ones about caves has ever been extended. There's a much greater probability they could be extended by cavers. Personally I would take out the NorthYorkshire stubs completely. Templating the stub so it explicitly says "cave" mitigates most of the damage. A double stub, in my opinion, does not undo the exclusionary effect. While the false statement "allowing anyone to edit an article feels exclusionary" might seem a logical consequence of my claim, that's not how we work, is it? I can clearly see that this policy has been fleshed out on the basis of logic rather than on psychology, which would have required experimentation. Otherwise we would be thinking about doing half of them one way, and half of them the other, and coming back next year to examine what's happened. I mean one ought to be discussing the conversion rate of these different styles, rather than arguing about technical elegance. Having some knowledge of tuning webpages I can tell you the small illogical changes can make spectacular differences... Not to worry. I have just read the Discussion Archives and the only comment on the issue of conversion rate is in question on appearance of triple stubs. I like the thought that the German wikipedia has abandoned stubs entirely, suggesting that the whole opinion is just a locked-in. Not my beef. We'll get there in the end (ie not having stubs on any of the articles I care about) in spite of policies which won't matter in the long run. Just because conversion rates do not appear to be of concern, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Whatever.Goatchurch 10:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also lack of logic and psychology. As soon as you point out that there isn't a North Yorkshire Project, and that stubs aren't connected to any wikiproject (that's what talk page banners are for), there should be no problem. All you're doing with the suggestions you make above is tantamount to saying "I don't care about any other editors except cavers, and I don't care whether asny other editors would be helped by stubs - you should remove all stub types from cave articles except a stub for caves, as it is clear that no-one else is interested in the articles". I'm afraid that is a very selfish suggestion, and also very unhelpful to Wikipedia. BTW, the German Wikipedia did abandon stubs...briefly. As soon as they discovered that they were far better off with stubs, they revokede that change, and are using stub categories again. As for conversion rate, I don';t see how cutting the number of types of visitors from "cavers and those interested in North Yorkshire" to "only cavers" is going to do anything except reduce the conversion rate (unless the number of people interested in North Yorkshire is below zero). Grutness...wha? 20:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a logic and then there's psychology. Having personally tried to get people to edit pages in WP I can tell you that a statement says to the novice reader, "this is part of the NorthYorkshire Project" really puts you off because you know you are are not part of them and, from your position of ignorance, you will tend to believe that there is a big NorthYorkshire community out there trundling through the articles about to clamp down and flatten you. And there isn't. There's about 950 NorthYorkshire stub articles and not one of the ones about caves has ever been extended. There's a much greater probability they could be extended by cavers. Personally I would take out the NorthYorkshire stubs completely. Templating the stub so it explicitly says "cave" mitigates most of the damage. A double stub, in my opinion, does not undo the exclusionary effect. While the false statement "allowing anyone to edit an article feels exclusionary" might seem a logical consequence of my claim, that's not how we work, is it? I can clearly see that this policy has been fleshed out on the basis of logic rather than on psychology, which would have required experimentation. Otherwise we would be thinking about doing half of them one way, and half of them the other, and coming back next year to examine what's happened. I mean one ought to be discussing the conversion rate of these different styles, rather than arguing about technical elegance. Having some knowledge of tuning webpages I can tell you the small illogical changes can make spectacular differences... Not to worry. I have just read the Discussion Archives and the only comment on the issue of conversion rate is in question on appearance of triple stubs. I like the thought that the German wikipedia has abandoned stubs entirely, suggesting that the whole opinion is just a locked-in. Not my beef. We'll get there in the end (ie not having stubs on any of the articles I care about) in spite of policies which won't matter in the long run. Just because conversion rates do not appear to be of concern, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Whatever.Goatchurch 10:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak to that, but shouldn't we concentrate on the effect, rather than the purpose (either as envisaged, or as represented)? Though right now, I suppose we should actually be concentrating on this stub type... Alai 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's increasingly looking like I was misled on the purpose of that scheme :/ Grutness...wha? 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when you say "never", presumably you mean aside from the proposed (and currently "pilot" implemented on 45k articles at last count) "standardisation" proposal, that passes about four parameters around, just for the laugh... Alai 03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.