Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:When to use the generic stub tag


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep - documents good practice, particularly after rewrite. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC) And heck, I found it useful (I'm glad to actually have found an essay that clears up the ambiguity). Maybe it should be linked more?

When to use the generic stub tag
This essay was never used, and links only to the authors userpage. Its also redundant to WP:STUB and WP:STUBSORT. No reason to userfy, and I didn't think discussing it with the author was going to effectively solve anything (in the event he is unblocked mind you).  Syn  ergy 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Why delete a harmless essay? We don't do that, and there a ton of defunct or forgotten essays. And why nominate one that's been around 2 years right after the author is blocked? Just leave the poor guy alone. rootology ( C )( T ) 12:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I just now noticed it. I've been sorting stubs since 2006, the essay is of no use and this has nothing to do with his block.  Syn  ergy 12:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. And I hope my response didn't sound overly harsh, it was AGF--I hardly got along with Kurt myself in any off-wiki communications. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not problem at all. Honestly, if this wasn't created by Kurt, it would have ended up here no matter what. I read the essay twice before bringing it here and I feel its just redundant to the stub sorting project and the guideline.  Syn  ergy 13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The timing here is either unfortunate or suspicious, given that the author of the essay cannot defend it or explain his intentions without violating the terms of his block/ban. If one was assuming bad faith, one might interpret this as vindictive. It is my belief that the work of banned editors should be assessed independently of those editors (for example, articles created by banned users should not be automatically deleted). So, to evaluate the merits of the work in itself:


 * This essay offers entirely sensible advice in a tone suggesting proposition rather than policy. The advice, not to worry about which specific sub-tag to use when stubbing an article is not obvious to the new user, who might worry about making a mistake tagging and getting in trouble. A useful heuristic for deciding whether something is a valid essay rather than redundant to am existing style guidelibe is to ask if a compelling essay from a different perspective would be viable. In this case, I feel that an essay proposing that, for example, editors unfamiliar with the "ins and outs" of stub sorting should leave it to experienced editors, or that generic stub tagging is a nuisance and should be discouraged, would be perspectives worth considering. Thus, this essay provides a perspective of value on the proper conduct of editors in this field, and is thus of value to the encyclopaedia. Furthermore, no compelling reason to delete has been proferred. Keep— the skomorokh 13:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not vindictive so can we dispense with those comments now? But in essence you want this kept to state the obvious then (or common sense). That editors go through a trial by error stage where they don't know exactly (in this case at least) which stub tag is used. Well, they don't have to. Thats why there is a project, and one that is advertised in the edit summary when its being sorted. Most of our editors who have been around for years still do not know which ones to use. And if they have a question they go to a talk page to ask. All this essay tells you, is that there is a project who knows more then you, and to let them handle it. I don't see anything that isn't covered, or could be covered by the guideline or project.  Syn  ergy 13:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy. This is a rant disguised as advice. As for the timing, it doesn't look like the author is going to be unblocked any time soon, so it's impractical to wait for that to happen first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rant? It boils down to don't worry abut what stub to use if you're not sure, because it's a very complex system, and let the experts handle it. Thats a rant? I've done the same thing myself when I was starting out. No one expected to learn every policy, program, guideline, system, process, and semafore flag language here in depth. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm reading into it too deeply (probably because of who the author is) but it would appear that if the answer to the question of "When to use the generic stub tag" is "always", then it wouldn't appear to be any point in framing it that way. Instead, what it reads like to me is "the stub sorters have built their own bureaucracy, and we should fight against it by not categorising stubs". That's the only explanation I have for the existence of this essay as a standalone page, because there is no mandate that stubs must be sorted in the documentation in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Useless essay.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unuseful. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Rewritten to express the original intent without the underlying contempt for stub sorters. The basic idea is helpful and important.  The wiki thrives on people who are dedicated and interested in a little segment of it.  Our job as editors is to help lubricate the interactions for subject matter experts.  Stub sorting helps to do that by putting people who like categorization into a place where they can help people who don't.  I think this essay (now) does a better job of explaining that. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep after Protonk's revision.  bibliomaniac 1  5  17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The essay is helpful and its goals are good, now it just needs a bit more copy-editing and an easy-to-remember shortcut. Protonk has already removed the offending sentences. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I confess that I don't see "underlying contempt for stub sorters" in the original version. To me it seems to actually be complimentary of them, in that it is basically admitting that the rest of us just aren't as good as they are, so it's more efficient to let them do it, since we won't do as good a job of it anyway.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is something that's nagged at me for a while. As someone who's just about given up even trying to even place a stub tag on an article, because I was afraid I was using the wrong one, it's nice to know that there are others out there who feel that it's okay to leave the detailed sorting to the experts, and spend my time on things that are more suited to my skills and interests. In fact, as much as I've objected to Kurt's recent behavior, I completely agree with his original version, as well as the new one.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll share my ambivalence about the original version, too. Had I just wandered on to it, instead of found it by way of an MfD where people had already insisted that it was oozing with contempt, I might have just thought nothing of it.  But, when looking at it, I saw a few different messages: 1. Wikis work because we don't force people to do everything.  2. There are groups of people who do this stuff and 3. That stuff really isn't important.  Messages one and two are fine.  Message three is kinda subtextual and not really great for an essay in the Wikipedia namespace.  But the major idea of the essay is something that is very important (and reminds me how glad I am that there is such a thing as wikiproject stub sorting). Protonk (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Perfectly justifiable essay as written now.  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @   19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per Stifle. Utan Vax (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep-Important to newcomers to Wikipedia. If the verdict of this discussion is "keep," there should be something on the "Wikipedia:Stubs" page that says "WP:STUB" redirects here. For an essay on when to use the generic "stub" tag, see "When to use the generic stub tag". Tezkag72 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.