Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This idea goes against many years of precedent, policy, and all-around enthusiasm for creating stubs. A one-sentence article may certainly be helpful; and more importantly, it is certainly not complete -- just like Wikipedia itself. Of course these short articles should be expanded, but that goes without saying for almost all content here -- the answer is not deletion. Just give it time. -- phoebe / (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This essay goes completely against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with a one-sentence stub, if the one sentence is an accurate reflection of the topic. Short stubs provide material for others to expand. Espresso Addict ( talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So what is it about a three sentence article that makes it illuminating and encyclopedic where a two sentence article is doomed to be incomplete? Protonk ( talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A guideline against beginning an article as a single sentence would make sense. However, that's already available at WP:BEEF, and gives the same message as this in an entirely more positive and less derisory light. This page goes against WP:DEMOLISH, WP:DEADLINE, WP:CHILL and, perhaps most importantly, WP:POTENTIAL and WP:CHANCE, all of which are more optimistic, commonsensical approaches to this topic. My opposition to this is partly, I suppose, caused by my opposition to essays in the Wikipedia namespace, but this goes beyond any uncertainty I've felt for other, similar pages. Can someone give me one good reason why I shouldn't nominate this for deletion/userfication? Thanks. — Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Propose deletion of this guideline per many reasons listed above. Should be replaced with common sense instead. Just ask yourself if the short article adds value or not as a stub or otherwise. If it doesn't then speedy delete. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I have contributed to this essay, and I do sympathize with its message of "Write a paragraph or just leave it as a redlink", but...It can be argued that a single sentence may still leave you further along than nothing. Take this (fictional) one sentence article: "Hans Brillig (1910-1944) was a Finnish film director, best known for his film Truth (1943)." If you come across the name Hans Brillig in an article about WW II or about Scandinavian artists, or see his name in a quote box, and you click on the blue link, you do get something. You know that he was Finnish, that he was a filmmaker, that he died during WW II (possibly a death related to the war). If there was no article, you wouldn't know if he was a Danish 11th century philosopher or a Swedish 20th century novelist. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The essay is illustrated by a picture of a Knautia macedonica inflorescence, with the caption "A single flower ...". But that "flower" is in fact a pseudanthium, composed of muliple flowers. It would be better to use some image of a single flower. Maproom ( talk) 08:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This idea goes against many years of precedent, policy, and all-around enthusiasm for creating stubs. A one-sentence article may certainly be helpful; and more importantly, it is certainly not complete -- just like Wikipedia itself. Of course these short articles should be expanded, but that goes without saying for almost all content here -- the answer is not deletion. Just give it time. -- phoebe / (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This essay goes completely against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with a one-sentence stub, if the one sentence is an accurate reflection of the topic. Short stubs provide material for others to expand. Espresso Addict ( talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So what is it about a three sentence article that makes it illuminating and encyclopedic where a two sentence article is doomed to be incomplete? Protonk ( talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A guideline against beginning an article as a single sentence would make sense. However, that's already available at WP:BEEF, and gives the same message as this in an entirely more positive and less derisory light. This page goes against WP:DEMOLISH, WP:DEADLINE, WP:CHILL and, perhaps most importantly, WP:POTENTIAL and WP:CHANCE, all of which are more optimistic, commonsensical approaches to this topic. My opposition to this is partly, I suppose, caused by my opposition to essays in the Wikipedia namespace, but this goes beyond any uncertainty I've felt for other, similar pages. Can someone give me one good reason why I shouldn't nominate this for deletion/userfication? Thanks. — Hysteria18 ( Talk • Contributions) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Propose deletion of this guideline per many reasons listed above. Should be replaced with common sense instead. Just ask yourself if the short article adds value or not as a stub or otherwise. If it doesn't then speedy delete. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I have contributed to this essay, and I do sympathize with its message of "Write a paragraph or just leave it as a redlink", but...It can be argued that a single sentence may still leave you further along than nothing. Take this (fictional) one sentence article: "Hans Brillig (1910-1944) was a Finnish film director, best known for his film Truth (1943)." If you come across the name Hans Brillig in an article about WW II or about Scandinavian artists, or see his name in a quote box, and you click on the blue link, you do get something. You know that he was Finnish, that he was a filmmaker, that he died during WW II (possibly a death related to the war). If there was no article, you wouldn't know if he was a Danish 11th century philosopher or a Swedish 20th century novelist. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The essay is illustrated by a picture of a Knautia macedonica inflorescence, with the caption "A single flower ...". But that "flower" is in fact a pseudanthium, composed of muliple flowers. It would be better to use some image of a single flower. Maproom ( talk) 08:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)