Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Spraint - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

456:. If, as you just have, you are trying to make it Somebody Else's Problem to expand stubs, then you are wrong. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else Problem. So here's your question reflected back at you: Why, if you think it so important that this stub be expanded that you nominate it for deletion, have you not worked on it yourself? Why are 427:
expand this stub," but "Why, if it's such an important topic to a few individuals, have they themselves not worked to expand it beyond a wiktionary entry?" I understand that this has been up for deletion before. Rather than have to argue so vehemently for its salvation, why don't you just add the information you find so key to its existence?
426:
I really don't appreciate the condescension, Uncle G. I've been on Knowledge (XXG) for more than four years, and I've been on a couple of task forces, so trust me when I say I know what a "stub" is. Frankly, when I come across a stub that's nothing but a definition, I don't ask "How is it possible to
509:
Fine. You've bent over backward to defend your right to leave the article as a stub. I bow to you as the expert on the subject and its importance. All I know is that if I thought something was worth so much apoplexy, I'd want to share as much information on it as I could with the rest of the world.
377:. In light of the historic absence of meaningful expansion to this article I believe that this represents a reasonable course of action. It is certainly notable (discussed in ~90 scholarly publications in 2009, ~600 since 2000), but more work needs to be done for it to stand on its own. -- 284:"Interwiki"? How about just a link on the referring page to the Wiktionary entry? According to your logic, we should have a separate Knowledge (XXG) page for every entry that both appears in a Knowledge (XXG) article and has a Wiktionary entry. 626:. I have expanded the article and added a reference but do not have access to Kruuk's book, mentioned above. The article seems to me clearly capable of further expansion but is already beyond a distionary definition. It is an adequate stub. 510:
You apparently believe that keeping all the material secreted away in your little library of books on otter shit is more important than using that knowledge to expand a virtually empty article. You'll hear no more from me on the matter.
160: 609:
This is a dictionary definition. I'm sure it's a good word to know for Scrabble players, but no content indicating the importance of the topic. It's otter poop and it smells bad, we get that.
352:
Whilst the current article is poor, there's plenty of notability as a topic and certainly scope for expansion (in particular, the importance of studying spraint to measure otter populations).
487:
policy and good practice, rather than taking the route of just tagging an article for deletion, with an unresearched nomination that was solely on the basis that both other people
321:
to Wiktionary, not an ordinary interwiki link. The article has existed for over 3 years without meaningful expansion beyond a dictionary definition. An alternative would be a
115: 452:
If you aren't asking that question, then you are doing things wrongly, and not in accordance with policy, and you don't have a leg to stand on for complaining when someone
743:
Additions to the article in the last few days have effectively rendered this nomination moot. Multiple sources demonstrate notability worthy for a stand alone article.--
642:... and I have now indicated the importance of surveying for spraint in otter surveys. I understand that otter surveys are of little or no interest to some editors. 154: 263:, and the AfD template specifically states one is free to edit the article beyond the template. On reflection that edit was a bit rash though. Apologies, 120: 473: 317:
Sorry, i was in a hurry last night and used the wrong piece of wikijargon; i meant just leave a link to the Wiktionary entry, i.e. a
17: 492: 495:? And what makes you think that the approach that you are taking here is a good one for the project, that people should take? 469: 465: 408: 771: 480: 404: 36: 175: 88: 83: 484: 329:', but that article doesn't currently mention the term 'spraint' so would first require a new section to be written. 142: 92: 318: 770:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
675: 75: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
397:
devotes pages 79–86 to the subject, which is discussed in quite extraordinary depth. There are even graphs.
357: 243: 136: 191:
Virtually a Wiktionary entry for the name of otter feces. Article has zero substance beyond definition.
259:
It depends what you mean by "blank"; unfortunately the AfD template doesn't link the word. I didn't
132: 750: 731: 671: 168: 756: 735: 716: 692: 679: 651: 635: 618: 601: 563: 546: 530: 504: 447: 420: 386: 361: 338: 322: 304: 272: 247: 233: 211: 57: 664: 182: 647: 631: 614: 500: 416: 382: 353: 239: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
400: 559: 53: 260: 512: 429: 286: 193: 745: 727: 698: 583: 334: 268: 229: 238:
Please don't blank articles in mid-AfD. Even the template is quite specific on this.
148: 643: 627: 610: 496: 412: 378: 79: 109: 555: 49: 472:"? Where was your effort to look at Knowledge (XXG) as an encyclopaedia to be 403:. The next time that you come across one, the proper course of thinking, per 479:, rather than only by everyone else? What effort did you put into following 330: 264: 225: 71: 63: 407:, is to ask yourself "How is it possible to expand this stub?". See 661:
There are lots of sources out there for this. I particularly like
549:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
393:… or indeed on the subject of sprainting in general. Hans Kruuk's 582:. Worth a sentence there, but unexpandable as an actual article. 575: 370: 326: 764:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
697:
I am not surprised the otters find the otter poo notable. ;-)
105: 101: 97: 670:
which you may consult if you want to see a picture...
468:? Where was your effort to look at a stub and think " 466:
research the subject before nominating it for deletion
167: 554:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 181: 687:decently sourced and more sources seem to exist. 464:that you are decrying? Where was your effort to 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 774:). No further edits should be made to this page. 666:What Shat That?: A Pocket Guide to Poop Identity 8: 395:Otters: ecology, behaviour, and conservation 399:PacificBoy, we call this sort of article a 409:User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 24: 691:, his otters and a clue-bat • 224:to the Wiktionary entry then. 1: 491:hadn't worked on the article 791: 757:16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 736:15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 58:15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 717:13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 693:22:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 680:19:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 652:19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 636:18:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 619:18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 602:13:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 564:12:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 531:22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 505:22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 470:How can this be expanded? 448:20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 421:01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 387:03:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 362:00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 339:22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 305:20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 273:22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 248:00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 234:20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 212:20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) 767:Please do not modify it. 462:part of the very problem 32:Please do not modify it. 726:- an expandable stub. 663:Matt Pagett (2007), 323:targetted redirect 44:The result was 566: 275: 782: 769: 753: 748: 714: 711: 708: 705: 690: 689:Ten Pound Hammer 669: 607:Merge or delete. 599: 596: 593: 590: 553: 551: 527: 524: 521: 518: 515: 489:and you yourself 444: 441: 438: 435: 432: 301: 298: 295: 292: 289: 258: 208: 205: 202: 199: 196: 186: 185: 171: 123: 113: 95: 34: 790: 789: 785: 784: 783: 781: 780: 779: 778: 772:deletion review 765: 751: 746: 712: 709: 706: 703: 688: 662: 597: 594: 591: 588: 544: 525: 522: 519: 516: 513: 442: 439: 436: 433: 430: 405:deletion policy 299: 296: 293: 290: 287: 261:←blank the page 206: 203: 200: 197: 194: 128: 119: 86: 70: 67: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 788: 786: 777: 776: 760: 759: 738: 721: 720: 719: 699:Andrew Lenahan 682: 672:Colonel Warden 655: 654: 639: 638: 621: 604: 584:Andrew Lenahan 568: 567: 552: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 454:tells you that 391: 390: 389: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 310: 309: 308: 307: 279: 278: 277: 276: 253: 252: 251: 250: 219:interwiki link 189: 188: 125: 121:AfD statistics 66: 61: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 787: 775: 773: 768: 762: 761: 758: 755: 754: 749: 742: 739: 737: 733: 729: 725: 722: 718: 715: 700: 696: 695: 694: 686: 683: 681: 677: 673: 668: 667: 660: 657: 656: 653: 649: 645: 641: 640: 637: 633: 629: 625: 622: 620: 616: 612: 608: 605: 603: 600: 585: 581: 577: 573: 570: 569: 565: 561: 557: 550: 548: 543: 542: 532: 529: 528: 508: 507: 506: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 477: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 450: 449: 446: 445: 425: 424: 423: 422: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 396: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 365: 364: 363: 359: 355: 351: 348: 347: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 319:soft redirect 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 306: 303: 302: 283: 282: 281: 280: 274: 270: 266: 262: 257: 256: 255: 254: 249: 245: 241: 237: 236: 235: 231: 227: 223: 222:soft redirect 220: 216: 215: 214: 213: 210: 209: 184: 180: 177: 174: 170: 166: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 134: 131: 130:Find sources: 126: 122: 117: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 766: 763: 744: 740: 723: 702: 684: 665: 658: 623: 606: 587: 579: 571: 545: 511: 488: 475: 461: 457: 453: 428: 398: 394: 374: 366: 354:Andy Dingley 349: 285: 240:Andy Dingley 221: 218: 192: 190: 178: 172: 164: 157: 151: 145: 139: 129: 45: 43: 31: 28: 155:free images 217:Keep as a 728:Gandalf61 572:Redirect 547:Relisted 481:deletion 474:written 367:Redirect 116:View log 644:Thincat 628:Thincat 611:Carrite 497:Uncle G 485:editing 413:Uncle G 379:Bhickey 161:WP refs 149:scholar 89:protect 84:history 72:Spraint 64:Spraint 580:delete 556:Stifle 476:by you 460:being 133:Google 93:delete 50:Stifle 741:Keep. 578:, or 576:Otter 375:Merge 371:Otter 327:otter 176:JSTOR 137:books 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 752:Bull 747:Pink 732:talk 724:Keep 685:Keep 676:talk 659:Keep 648:talk 632:talk 624:Keep 615:talk 560:talk 501:talk 483:and 417:talk 401:stub 383:talk 358:talk 350:Keep 335:talk 331:Qwfp 325:to ' 269:talk 265:Qwfp 244:talk 230:talk 226:Qwfp 169:FENS 143:news 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 54:talk 46:keep 710:bli 595:bli 574:to 514:Pac 493:yet 458:you 431:Pac 373:or 369:to 288:Pac 195:Pac 183:TWL 118:• 114:– ( 734:) 713:nd 707:ar 704:St 701:- 678:) 650:) 634:) 617:) 598:nd 592:ar 589:St 586:- 562:) 523:Bo 520:ic 517:if 503:) 440:Bo 437:ic 434:if 419:) 411:. 385:) 360:) 337:) 297:Bo 294:ic 291:if 271:) 246:) 232:) 204:Bo 201:ic 198:if 163:) 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 56:) 48:. 730:( 674:( 646:( 630:( 613:( 558:( 526:y 499:( 443:y 415:( 381:( 356:( 333:( 300:y 267:( 242:( 228:( 207:y 187:) 179:· 173:· 165:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 140:· 135:( 127:( 124:) 112:) 74:( 52:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
Stifle
talk
15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Spraint
Spraint
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
AfD statistics
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
PacificBoy
20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Qwfp

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.