User talk:Nicola Romani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Nicola Romani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Cúchullain t/c 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Marinus

There are others, but he's clearly the most famous one. Additionally, I could find virtually nowhere where he's actually called "Marinus the Deacon"; per our naming conventions, we use common names. If, in the future, articles are written on the Marini, we can create a disambiguation page to distinguish them.--Cúchullain t/c 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{RC-cardinal-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for that - I've replied over at the discovery page. Briefly, though, it's not a policy, but a strong recommendation, since it allows the people who work with stubs the most to know what types are likely to be created and to double-check there aren't any problems with them before they are made (it's far easier to make stub types right the first time than try to fix them afterwards!) In the case of this stub type, it looks pretty much OK, though. Grutness...wha? 11:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)