Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/October

Newly discovered, October 2009

{{Can-royal-stub}}/Category:Canadian royalty stubs

Found this while stub sorting, should be renamed to {{

Borgarde (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

Almost certainly a deletion candidate - royal-stub is for biographies of members of royal families. None of the stubs marked are thus really royal-stubs, and very few of the stubs marked with this are even more than tenuously royalty-related. How, for example, a horse race in Hong Kong counts as either royalty or Canadian is completely beyond me... I've taken this to SFD. Grutness...wha? 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this one a few days ago not realizing that there was a policy on stub creation. The stub is the only stub for the Human genetic history project. The creation of the stub followed upgrades of the HGH wikiproject banner which created a subcategory for Stub-class articles, where HGH is the primary category for the page. Only two pages have this stub so far but over 200 pages are unassessed and many of these will likely be stubed at some point.PB666 ^yap 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the current stub's name doesn't follow the conventions for stub template names. It also has no stub category, either dedicated or upmerged, feeds into a Wikiproject's category (not standard practice), has a name which doesn't agree with the stated subject in the template's text (molecular antthropology - there is no such article as

WP:STUB, if you're looking for a way to earmark stubs for one specific wikiproject (which it looks as if you are), a far better way is to use a dedicated talk page assessment template - that would allow you to keep track of all your project's articles, not just the stubs. If you feel that a stub template would be more useful, then we may well need to start from scratch with this one. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The person who wrote the above obviously did not read the project page.

Are available

Molecular Anthropology = Human genetic history - They are roughly equivalent. I did not name the project, if I had named the project I would not have used that name. I think the logic of blocking a stub because the project was named poorly is silly. Anthropology covers a wide range of topics that deal with material culture and social culture. Human genetic history deals with topics from Popular geneology to anthropoid evolution. It deals with Human genetics, matematical models, protein evolution. Many pages such as

Chimp-human last common ancestor deal with topics generally outside the realm of material culture and language evolution. Almost all genetic studies on humans are anchored in an LCA that range from Orangutan (OHLCA ranges from 14 to 20Ma) to Chimpanzees with the suggested CHLCA of 7 to 10 million years. The CHLCA is 5 million years older than the first evidence of material culture. PB666 ^yap 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

~~Since this stub does not follow the naming convention I will mark it for deletion however I need to unstub a couple of pages.~~PB666 ^yap 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was trivial so I repaired it, there is now a category labeled Human Genetic History stubs, which links to the wikiproject. This follows the convention of archaeology and anthropology stubs.PB666 ^yap 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the remaining problems are (present tense) trivial - you fixed one by creating a handful more problems, but the rest still remain. I did read the pages you mentioned, but they did not explain why a stub template was incorrectly named - which it still is - and why it failed all the other points I mentioned, most specifically how this stub type provides an advantage that other approved stub types do not. Perhaps you have not read the relevant pages on stub naming and stub creation (I'd start with

WP:WSS/NC

). Your attempts to fix the one or two problems you have has simply created more problems - you now have a new base permcat with a key article with a different name, which is not connected in any way to the main category hierarchy (article categories are not meant to link directly to WikiProjects alone - that's what WikiProject categories are for). Rather than trying to fix problems on the fly - and thereby compoiunding the problems - it's far better to debatee things properly first.

If there are good reasons for having this as a separate stub, then I've no objection to it, though - as I say - there are so many problems with the current template that it would be easier to start from scratch with a proposal for a new template. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what other name I would give it, without creating a whole new category of articles. And again I think the naming issues are trivial on what category pages to use as long is there is a central category which all fall into. As far as 'handful of other problems' that sounds like a distracting over-exaggeration inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am not going to create a whole new freestanding hierarchy simply for molecular anthropology when human genetic history already exists. This all boils down to a key point, human genetic history a WikiProject created by 10 'Sciencey' folks on Wikipedia does not have a Main. The reason it does not have a main is because the Project was improperly named, there is nothing I can or will do about that. Molecular Anthropology and HGH are too close in scope to have a separate project pages, so I am not going to attempt to create that either. What remains is a stub that could have the name MolAnthro-stub sort its main, but be categorized into the HGH project or what is currently a HGH-stub that has MolAnthro as the Main and is stubed into the HGH project. Seems to me that there is no big difference since both have at least one imperfection. The other altnerative is to change the link on the stub to human-genetic history and have it redirect to Mol. Anthro. page.PB666 ^yap 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names and problems:

Human genetic history (three so-called intersections)
 a. Human yes
 b. genetics yes and appropriate
   a-b. human genetics yes and appropriate
 c. History not appropriate branch
Molecular Anthropology
 a. Molecular - Molecular genetic yes and appropriate (Protein and DNA evolution)
 b. Anthropology yes and appropriate

Let's take these points one at a time.

You may regard the naming as trivial, but that's because you have the luxury of only dealing with one stub type - not trying to keep the names of several thousand as uniform as possible.
I listed six basic concerns with the template. You fixed two (and created further problems). Four existing problems, to my mind, is quite clearly enough to be considered a handful of problems. This is not an overexaggeration.
I don't understand what you mean by "not having a main". A main what? If you mean a main stub type, many (if not most) Wikiprojects don't have main stub types. They don't need them, and most get by with the far more appropriate talk-page banner templates. The purpose of stubs is not connected with Wikiprojects - it is to categorise all stubs across the entirety of Wikipedia.
Because stub types are not connected to wikiprojects, there is absolutely no need for a stub template to have a name that is identical to a wikiproject.
Why are you talking about changing the link on the template to have it point to a redirect? The problem is that the template is incorrectly named, and changing the wording to point to a redirect isn't going to fix that. The current name is inappropriate for several reasons - the most obvious one from the point of view of stub-sorting being that it is not hyphenated. But even {{
history-stub}}. If you hadn't created more work by suddenly creating Category:Human genetic history, but had instead created Category:Molecular anthropology, or Category:Genetic anthropology (perhaps the most appropriate name), then a {{Molecular-anthropology-stub}} or {{Genetic-anthropology-stub
}} would have been an appropriate template name. Again, the choice of parent permanent category name is in no way connected to the name of the WikiProject and does not need to be the same as that name.

You still haven't given any answers to the other problems I raised initially - most importantly, why this stub type is even necessary. Category:Anthropology stubs is below average in size for stub categories, and less that a quarter of the size necessary before a split should be considered. Similarly, Category:Genetics stubs, though larger, is not oversized.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries/Log/2009/October

Newly discovered, October 2009

{{Can-royal-stub}}/Category:Canadian royalty stubs

{{Human genetic history-stub}}

{{PJ-stub}}