Average Earthman 22:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Better to red link such articles that waste a user's time.
hfool/
Wazzup? 23:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Redlink it, so someone browsing around who knows something about it will see it and go, "Ooo! I can add something about that!"
Deathphoenix 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) Maybe rephrase to Extremely short articles consisting of nothing but a rephrase of the title.
[[User:Premeditated Chaos|
User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC): Agree if wording is changed to Deathphoenix's. Much more solid definition.
I agree with Average Earthman and hfool above. A redlink is better than a page that technically exists but has no real content. -
RedWordSmith 21:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Niteowlneils 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC). Agree with Wikimol, et al. Also, this proposal simply documents current practice--it is NOT a proposed change.
Niteowlneils 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Obvious" is not well defined and has been easy to abuse in the past, plus, makes no allowance for if the article is marked stub, categorized, interwiki'd, etc.
Netoholic@ 00:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Will lend itself to abuse in the future.
Triped 00:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
The wording is not clear; if it's something I've heard of before than anything could be obvious by the title! One could also infer a lot things from a title alone without prior knowledge. The proposal text should make it clear that this applies to places where the words of the title are reused without any other clarifying words. Text explicitly marked as stubs of this type where multiple editors have contributed significant changes should go to vote. --
Sketchee 01:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
"Obvious" is a very subjective term; what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. In addition I feel that this proposal could potentially lead to abuse, or allegations of abuse.
Rje 01:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I firmly disagree with what some people consider 'obvious'; as a term, it's inextricably linked to the prior knowledge of whoever's viewing the article.
Meelar(talk) 02:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above; it's too subjective. --
Slowking Man 07:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Some of these are probably candidates for redirects/merges.
iMeowbot~
Mw 07:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just because an article is short and useless, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on that topic. Bad articles want fixing, not deleting.
David Johnson [
T|
C] 12:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Articles like this should be marked as (sub)stub or merged. If the topic is encyclopedic, the page will get recreated eventually anyway, so what's the problem?
Kelly Martin 17:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above (by user Kelly Martin). However, I disagree with the objection that the wording is subjective: if anyone disagrees with the proposal for that reason, they should provide an ambiguous example or reconsider their position.
Phils 18:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Too vague. Will lend itself to abuse. [[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 20:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS. However I would change my vote to agree iff the wording was changed to Deathpheonix's Extremely short articles consisting of nothing but a rephrase of the title. [[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 06:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A little too vague. If "Tezuka Yamazaki" had the content "Tezuka Yamazaki is a Japanese man," I would agree with its deletion. -
Vague |
Rant 03:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
The various objections raised here must be dealt with first.
→Iñgōlemo←(talk) 05:53, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I don't think this is too vague but there are other problems.Brianjd 07:29, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC) [strike
Brianjd 07:39, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)] Actually, after reading other user's comments, I think that this is too vague.
Brianjd 07:39, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I thought about it and the wording is not watertight as it stands. --
JuntungWu 03:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Also what
Netoholic@ said. --
JuntungWu 03:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC))
Too vague, subjective. --
Viriditas |
Talk 09:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I support the spirit of the proposal, but obvious is too vague.
Josh 10:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't this include most substubs?
Lectonar 14:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Smerdis of Tlön 17:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Way too subjective.)
I thought the whole idea of wikipedia was for people to create articles with whatever they knew, then other people who knew something else about the subject could come along and add more. This goes against all of that (plus do we really need yet MORE pointless bureaucracy in WP? --
Cynical 20:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This proposal appears to ban substubs. --
llywrch 20:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is better to bring it to the attention of the community so that more people have the opportunity to consider it.
165.228.129.11 00:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Katefan0 20:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) -- I agree with the concept, but think the proposal's language needs to be tightened to be a little less vague.
PacknCanes 08:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- As others have said, way too vague. For this to work, there needs to be a subjective definition of "obvious"...which isn't easy to come by.
--
Brendanfox 11:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) yep, it's just too vague.
John 11:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Thing the debate on VfD is useful in these cases.
Average Earthman 22:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Better to red link such articles that waste a user's time.
hfool/
Wazzup? 23:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Redlink it, so someone browsing around who knows something about it will see it and go, "Ooo! I can add something about that!"
Deathphoenix 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) Maybe rephrase to Extremely short articles consisting of nothing but a rephrase of the title.
[[User:Premeditated Chaos|
User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC): Agree if wording is changed to Deathphoenix's. Much more solid definition.
I agree with Average Earthman and hfool above. A redlink is better than a page that technically exists but has no real content. -
RedWordSmith 21:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Niteowlneils 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC). Agree with Wikimol, et al. Also, this proposal simply documents current practice--it is NOT a proposed change.
Niteowlneils 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Obvious" is not well defined and has been easy to abuse in the past, plus, makes no allowance for if the article is marked stub, categorized, interwiki'd, etc.
Netoholic@ 00:18, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Will lend itself to abuse in the future.
Triped 00:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
The wording is not clear; if it's something I've heard of before than anything could be obvious by the title! One could also infer a lot things from a title alone without prior knowledge. The proposal text should make it clear that this applies to places where the words of the title are reused without any other clarifying words. Text explicitly marked as stubs of this type where multiple editors have contributed significant changes should go to vote. --
Sketchee 01:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
"Obvious" is a very subjective term; what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. In addition I feel that this proposal could potentially lead to abuse, or allegations of abuse.
Rje 01:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I firmly disagree with what some people consider 'obvious'; as a term, it's inextricably linked to the prior knowledge of whoever's viewing the article.
Meelar(talk) 02:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above; it's too subjective. --
Slowking Man 07:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Some of these are probably candidates for redirects/merges.
iMeowbot~
Mw 07:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just because an article is short and useless, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on that topic. Bad articles want fixing, not deleting.
David Johnson [
T|
C] 12:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Articles like this should be marked as (sub)stub or merged. If the topic is encyclopedic, the page will get recreated eventually anyway, so what's the problem?
Kelly Martin 17:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above (by user Kelly Martin). However, I disagree with the objection that the wording is subjective: if anyone disagrees with the proposal for that reason, they should provide an ambiguous example or reconsider their position.
Phils 18:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Too vague. Will lend itself to abuse. [[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 20:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS. However I would change my vote to agree iff the wording was changed to Deathpheonix's Extremely short articles consisting of nothing but a rephrase of the title. [[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 06:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A little too vague. If "Tezuka Yamazaki" had the content "Tezuka Yamazaki is a Japanese man," I would agree with its deletion. -
Vague |
Rant 03:05, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
The various objections raised here must be dealt with first.
→Iñgōlemo←(talk) 05:53, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I don't think this is too vague but there are other problems.Brianjd 07:29, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC) [strike
Brianjd 07:39, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)] Actually, after reading other user's comments, I think that this is too vague.
Brianjd 07:39, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I thought about it and the wording is not watertight as it stands. --
JuntungWu 03:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Also what
Netoholic@ said. --
JuntungWu 03:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC))
Too vague, subjective. --
Viriditas |
Talk 09:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I support the spirit of the proposal, but obvious is too vague.
Josh 10:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't this include most substubs?
Lectonar 14:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Smerdis of Tlön 17:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Way too subjective.)
I thought the whole idea of wikipedia was for people to create articles with whatever they knew, then other people who knew something else about the subject could come along and add more. This goes against all of that (plus do we really need yet MORE pointless bureaucracy in WP? --
Cynical 20:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This proposal appears to ban substubs. --
llywrch 20:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is better to bring it to the attention of the community so that more people have the opportunity to consider it.
165.228.129.11 00:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Katefan0 20:35, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) -- I agree with the concept, but think the proposal's language needs to be tightened to be a little less vague.
PacknCanes 08:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- As others have said, way too vague. For this to work, there needs to be a subjective definition of "obvious"...which isn't easy to come by.
--
Brendanfox 11:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) yep, it's just too vague.
John 11:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Thing the debate on VfD is useful in these cases.