User:SPUI/SFD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the community discussion page.

These users have been reduced to using only {{stub}} or numerous redirects due to stub policy "cruft".

  1. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion was started because stub types were being listed on both TFD and CFD, as a stub type has both a template and a category. This is a rather admirable goal. However, somewhere along the way, a third type of page got included - redirects. Redirects like {{us-rail-stub}} to {{US-rail-stub}} and {{NYCS stub}} to {{NYCS-stub}}. Redirects that would be overwhelmingly if not speedily kept in their proper place, RFD. However, since SFD is an out-of-the-way page, which most non-stub sorters avoid, these useful redirects are typically deleted because they do not follow naming conventions. For this reason, I am now using {{stub}} on all articles I mark as stubs. I have an HTML comment at User:SPUI/stub that explains my views. I urge others to do the same. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 05:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. A lack of a clearly defined stub naming policy is a WP:BITE vio, IMO. And those who try to keep this from happening over at WP:WSS are WP:OWN violators in my opinion, which I can only assume is in an attempt to create a consolidation of power for those who create such complicated stub names. This began in earnest with me when I often confused {{New Hampshire-stub}} with {{NewHampshire-stub}} when I was stubbing dozens of New Hampshire articles at a time. I gained consensus on keeping both at WP:SFD, but the nomination was relisted a day later in a different place to try and get a different consensus to validate a deletion since it was not created via WP:WSS. I also had issues with WP:SFD earlier when one deletion debate was allowed to go on for several months and created highway stubs that had different standards for every state. Just put in {{stub}} or make numerous redirects if you use stubs at all. Don't play into the cruftocracy. karmafist 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Clearly things at WP:WSS have gotten out of hand. —Locke Cole 07:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. "Keep," says this deletionist vandal. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:44, Dec. 29, 2005
  6. I use {{stub}} simply because I never know (or can be bothered to find out) which of the countless stub templates would be most appropriate, and because I'm sure there's always someone at WP:WSS who would be glad to pad his edit count a bit more by sorting my article. — Dan | talk 20:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Really. Well, that's... honest. It's a good thing I get paid US$0.25 per edit... Herostratus 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. I use {{stub}} for all stubs. Stub sorters are contaminated with the evil editcountitis, a highly contagious and fatal disease. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. I second Rdsmith4. If someone else want to, I needn't bother learning yet another scheme. Rmhermen 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Stub-sorting is broken in my opinion. Stub vs non-stub is orthogonal to categorization so there should only be a "stub" template. We just need to get category intersection implemented in MediaWiki. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-07 05:36Z
  10. I agree with Quarl. It's much more useful for each category to show the stubs in that category than to add a stub template to an article for each category it belongs to. But then again, I only joined this list to pad my edit count. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. I personally have never seen the point to stub sorting. Who cares? A stub is a fucking stub. I'm with SPUI on just using {{stub}}. --Analogdemon (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. The page (remember when it was one big page?) with all the stubs on it is (1) hard to find, and (2) takes too long to load. When I'm too stressed to look up a stub, I just don't bother. --James S. 10:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    Too true. I'll give it a try sometimes, but it frustrates the heck out of me sometimes that redirects don't exist for certain things--{{ag-stub}} as a redirect to {{agri-stub}} got deleted because at some distant point {{ag-stub}} MIGHT be POSSIBLY confused by SOMEBODY with a stub-thing for attorney generals, and because SOME people hadn't ever heard of "ag" as a short form of agriculture... never mind the Wikipedia policy that if someone finds a redirect useful, it's generally kept... aiee, I'm getting angry again... oww. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (breathes in, breathes out) Never mind. I'd rather my name weren't attached to this--I'm not going to take sides. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)