Talk:Sty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

From VfD:

Dictdef, doesn't include the eye condition anyway. RickK 06:11, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

• That's a stye :) Adam Bishop 06:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: You mean a stighe? Geogre 12:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Rossami's version, but we need it to really be informed by some hog farmers. Geogre 13:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Never seen it spelled either of those ways.  :) RickK 19:22, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
• This stub was nominated for deletion less than 20 min after its creation. Keep to give it a chance to grow. If it's still a mere definition in a month, renominate it. Rossami 22:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • VfD time frame is 5 days, not a month. I can't keep track of all of the trash that's created every day, let alone a month's worth. How am I supposed to remember to come back and check on this in a month? RickK 07:46, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • You don't have to. That's the great thing about a wiki. All of us share the responsibility and our history has proven that bad articles do get found and fixed. Since this discussion will be preserved and referenced on the Talk page, every future reader has the chance to renominate the article. It's a stub, not an article with false, misleading or harmful information. Rossami 16:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Please explain the purpose of Wiktionary, then. RickK 19:03, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • Certainly. My understanding is that Wiktionary is the best home for articles which can never be more than a dictionary entry. This is an article about a real object used in a real profession. It's in the same class as, say, beehive. Personally, I can't think of an obvious way to expand the article or I would have done it already but I didn't think there was anything to say about office either and that is no longer a stub. I'm not saying that this shouldn't end up in Wiktionary if it isn't improved but I don't see any harm in giving this one the benefit of the doubt for a while. Rossami 22:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone is going to add to it and make it an encyclopedic entry instead of a dictdef, they can do it even if this substub isn't there. Timbo 02:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. SWAdair | Talk 05:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep expanded version. For the record, I always vote on the current version of an article and I do believe in deleting dicdefs even if they could be expanded. A self-obvious substub is, IMO, worse than no article. Give dicdefs five days here and if no one has cared enough to expand, then delete. This one has been expanded enough to change my vote to keep. SWAdair | Talk 03:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Okay, I found a few things to say after all. It still needs a lot of work. Rossami 22:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Now includes discussion of both words, and encyclopedic information about both that goes beyond merely a dictionary definition. As stated, still needs work, but so do all the rest of our articles. Might be better as a disambiguation page someday, but not really large enough to need it yet. Couldn't find the spelling stigh except as a surname. --Michael Snow 23:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Several people have said that articles which are currently mere dicdefs are eligible for deletion. I understand the argument but that it is inconsistent with the current Deletion policy, specifically the line about dicdefs. If we want to change the policy, may I recommend moving the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy rather than using this discussion thread? Rossami
  • The problem with "cannot ever be more than a dictdef" is that it includes nothing at all. Any word at all can possibly be discussed. Therefore, we would never, ever, under any circumstances, delete a dictdef. Require us to all use our imaginations to supply what the authors have not, and one of us clever fellows will be able to think up something. SWAdair is right: we vote on the article as it is, not the future. We vote on articles, not topics; we vote on articles, not authors; we vote on articles, not intentions. If an article comes in and as written cannot be more than a dictdef, it is deleted. The fact that we can stare at it and say, "Well, let's just rip out all that text and write something completely different" is not grounds for a keep vote. Geogre 16:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I should add that I do not in any way mean to suggest that these are speedy decisions. As always, we should vote with our work, too. When "Fantod" comes onto VfD, for example, I might get happy about such a neat word, but, if the article is a dictdef, people are justified in voting delete. If I then change the article as it's listed and show how it doesn't stay lexical, then I can ask folks to reconsider. My point is just to say that the voting decision is based on the article. If one of the voters wishes to improve the article, then he or she should do so. I hope we all look again later in the voting period and change where appropriate. Geogre 21:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that generally an article on any noun can become more than a dictionary definition. However, just discussing a word doesn't make an encyclopedia entry. Encyclopedia entries are generally not about words at all, but about the concepts behind the words. It's perhaps a subtle distinction, but think about how many adjectives you'll find in just about any encyclopedia. That number is going to be rather close to 0, if not 0. anthony (see warning) 15:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep expanded version. With an image and some expansion it is a fine article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Sty is perhaps a good place for discussion about the various methods of keeping pigs. stall and tether for example is a practice that is common in some European countries, but is banned in the UK. Mintguy (T) 23:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as stub or disambig page. Note that even Columbia Encyclopedia has an article on sty. I would think we want to be at least as inclusive as they are. anthony (see warning) 14:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! Honestly, this is different from, say, refer, or different, or large. A sty is obviously a word of scientific and agricultural interest, whereas "different", "large", "refer", those would never be found in an encyclopedia. Words like "prophecy", "war", etc. are found in dictionaries, but there is a reason they are found on this encyclopedia - prophecy deals with religion (a perfectly acceptable encyclopedia topic), and war deals with military science (again). ugen64 19:56, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

---

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the eye condition under stye rather than that being a redirect here and both meanings having to be in the same place? --195.11.216.59 13:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That depends on what the "correct" spelling of the eye condition is... if sty, then it should remain here or (if/when either of the artciles are expanded such that the page begins to get unweildy) moved to "sty (eye condition)".

[edit] Merge?

I propose a merge with pigpen (which in turn is merged into Family farm hog pen. I have done so because of the quote in the article as It is sometimes referred to as a pigpen or "pig parlor". What do you all think?? --Francisco Valverde 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)