Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal II (Amount of content II)

Substubs
If I'm not mistaken, Proposal II refers to what some people call a substub. Whether you agree that these are appropriate as a concept or not, you at least need to make the connection explicit, because the term is current and there's plenty on the talk page of that article, including plenty of reasons to influence your vote on this proposal. Note that I'm not advocating the unqualified use of the word "substub", because that rakes in the whole "controversy". (My tongue is firmly in my cheek here, "people deftly talking past each other" is more appropriate.) Nevertheless, when I saw Proposal II the first thing I thought was "substub", so sweeping it under the rug is pointless. (And I agree with the current version of the substub page, incidentally: expand them into stubs or SD them, as you see fit. Just as long as you don't clog VfD with entries that are longer than the articles they're nominating.) JRM 15:51, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken. Proposition II doesn't match the definition of a sub-stub presented at Substub.  The example on that page is "Airplanes are flying machines with wings", which certainly would not fall under Proposition II.  A quick check of a dozen articles in Category:Substub found that none of them could be deleted under Proposition II.- SimonP 17:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Alright, then I'd like that written out explicitly:
 * Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title (e.g. Swazi embassy to Mozambique which said "The Embassy of Swaziland is the home of Swaziland's representative to Mozambique."), but not any other kind of substub (e.g. "Airplanes are flying machines with wings").
 * Otherwise I'd have trouble believing that everyone would interpret this policy correctly. Point in case: I for one made the mistake of not doing that, and I don't consider myself particularly silly or misguided here. JRM 18:40, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I don't believe the definition is the same and I don't believe a qualifier needs to be added. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with adding a qualifier? Paul August ☎ 21:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with adding a qualifier? I think there is no change to the meaning. Of course, the example should not be part of the policy. Brianjd 07:17, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's Category:Substubs, not Category:Substub. Brianjd 07:26, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Contradictory example
Proposal II has an example which provides information not self-evident from the title. It's very common for ambassadors to live somewhere other than at their embassy, so saying that it is the home of the ambassador as well as the embassy is additional information. Jamesday 19:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * . BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 00:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Obvious"
(response to Netoholic's disagree vote)


 * For your benefit: Obvious adj. Easily perceived or understood; quite apparent. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I find your comment mocking and snide. I am aware of the dictionary meaning, but the word "obvious" has been used as an open door to abuse in the past.  What is "obvious" is too often questionable. -- Netoholic @ 00:37, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Brianjd 07:35, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

The answer to All of the objections is that every little bit helps. -User:Lee S. Svoboda
 * (I added the attrib above so we know who said what. Hope that's okay).
 * I'm not sure I follow, the answer to concerns about the deletion of possibly legitimate material is that every bit helps?  The deletion of every bit or ...?--Sketchee 03:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning
For many of us, we're more likely to edit a redlink than we are a blue link; therefore, if the contents of Peerage of the United Kingdom were "The Peerage of the United Kingdom is the peerage system used in the United Kingdom", I'd assume there was a half-decent article there (because the link was blue). However, if the link were red, I'd be surprised that an article didn't exist and I would go create it. ugen 64 00:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * EXACTLY. - BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 19:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A red link makes me feel lazy, but a blue link makes me curious - I am more likely to improve the page if there's a blue link there, in general. I don't think we are ever going to get a consensus on this. Brianjd 07:22, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * You follow every blue link in any article you read? &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  01:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the talk at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk seems appropriate here. See my comment above. Brianjd 07:26, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * Don't assume, a blue article is an article that most people would expect to have relevent information. If it does not, than its the perfect opportunity to do so! If a red link doesn't interest me, I bypass it. But if I see an incomplete blue link I'm more likely to edit it for shame that some researching student will spot it and be discusted with the incompletness of the encyclopedia. bernlin2000 ∞ 15:35, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Three-toed sloth
Somebody once used this example. Suppose an article of that name said "The three-toed sloth is a sloth with three toes" and no more. Well this tells me something - it tells me that such a thing exists. It is also going to encourage me more to expand it (see "Reasoning" section just before this one). Yet it would be deleted under this proposal. Brianjd 07:35, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * It doesn't tell you that such a thing exists. It could be fictional. You could have gotten more information than that from the context of whatever page linked to it. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  01:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rewording the proposal
From the time of this comment, it seems that this proposal won't pass (117 agree, 72 disagree, for a total of 62% support), but some people that disagree seemed to support my suggested rewording:

From Extremely short articles which add no information beyond what is obvious from the title.

To Extremely short articles consisting of nothing but a rephrase of the title.

Maybe a future proposal could feature this rewording. --Deathphoenix 15:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)