This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Would the usability initiative be able to provide any input into decisions about how stub templates and categories are used? Basically what we have is a sensible arrangement derived from reasonable, but untested assumptions, we have one and a half million stubs, and no way of knowing how effective tagging, categorising etc are. We could of course do some simple tests ourselves. For example take a sample of 20,000 stubs and de-tag half, wait a month and see if there was a difference in the percentage expanded. Or try different tagging methods or location. Or try advertising 100 selected stubs via different means (subject projects, clean-up projects, Signpost, talk pages, mailing lists, universities).
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
I made a change change to this guideline, removing the requirement to have two blank lines before stub templates, and was reverted on the argument that the outcome of this archived discussion was not I as I think. I find that very arguable. See also this discussion, where two blank lines was said to give "the desired spaceing". This is precisely what I contest. I think the outcome of the old discussion here was that such spacing is not deemed necessary by most. Your opinions please. Debresser ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
Chile-geo-stub}}
(if it were normal height it'd be too narrow to see). On
Iquique Province it's given two blank lines beforehand, on
Laguna del Laja National Park just one;
Laja Lake has none. I don't think that being without a gap is such a big problem. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
<!-- Categories -->
and such. I remember that when I was a newbie, I briefly thought that {{Foo}}
and [[Category:Foo]]
were redundant.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (moved from
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout) by
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
[Parenthetical note:One blank line will display the same as zero blank lines, an uncategorised stub with a defaultsort will have too much space, however this is likely to be a temporary and rare occurrence]
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
Over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Tag_for_stubbed_pages? we're discussing what to do about some articles that need stubbing due to long-term pollution. I think we want a tag, something like "This is a stubbed version of a much longer article that was found to have problems. You may see the earlier version at []. Please help us rebuild it". Is there any precedent for this? William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have started a discussion over on GNG, which mostly relates to stubs - and similar issues to those in the section above, except it is concerning the need for minimal reliable sources in articles - even if they're stubs.
Please comment over there: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Articles need multiple sources.
Best, Chzz ► 22:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Haven't you got something more useful to do with your time Chzz? Geographical place names only need verification of existence. And my Benin stubs have government population data. Expecting lots of web sources for towns in places like Benin is hardly indicative of its level of notability or level of encyclopedic appropriateness. A single source to government figures or other reliable source is enough to make it valid, at least as a start. If you genuinely wanted to improve our coverage of the "Global South" then a mention and fact about the places is far far better than if it didn't exist at all. If you still have a problem with that then I suggest you learn to accept it or simply shut up. The web is still in its infancy and more and more sources are becoming available for third world locations and topics all the time. Take the Communes of Mali for instance. There are a lot of USAID case studies on them on the web.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above has brought out many useful viewpoints. I will try to summarize them before asking for input to a straw poll. But I am not comfortable that we are giving enough weight to the reader's experience and would like to first open discussion on that. Whatever our hopes are that stubs will somehow encourage editors to add content, the question of whether stubs are useful to readers is not one to be ignored. Wikipedia is for readers, not for editors. If readers get even more cynical about Wikipedia, most of the work put into the project will have been wasted. Here is a scenario. The article on the famous Ruritanian poet Hyrmant Schlanzk includes the following:
When a reader searches on Xtrynyr, they will find the article on the poet Schlanzk, and will learn something about the village. Now we make a stub that says "Xtrynyr is a community in Ruritania". When the user enters "Xtrynyr" in the search box and presses ENTER, that is all they get. Before, the search results gave some information about Xtrynyr. Now, the reader is stuck in a stub that tells them next to nothing. I am not sure about the wording, but there must be some way to say that a stub is not good if it reduces the amount of information a reader would find on a search result. Thoughts on how stubs increase or reduce the value of Wikipedia to readers? Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Redlinks more informative in some cases". I would thoroughly disagree, especially on stubs with intertranswiki tags. If the articles inform the reader that it is located in .... even that is more informative than nothing at all. Any "empty" stubs I've created have the translation tags in which one can click google translate link and immediately be presented with the information to the reader in english. Sorry Aymatth, but I think your distaste of the shorter stubs is affecting your outlook. A lot of editors are willing to add to an article but unwilling to create it. And if editors hate short stubs in their preferences they can simply programme a minimum KB size. You could simply change it in your preference to avoid clicking on articles and getting the "annoying lack of content". I would agree that one fact and one source bare minimum should be a rule but then this would exclude new articles from newbies who may start notable subjects and have them deleted because they don't know about sourcing. I think you're pretty much wasting your time with this as there is unlikely to be a "rule" which stops them from being created. If just a guideline if merely says "we frown upon this", not as if I wasn't aware of that already!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I notice on many websites they provide useful buttons beneath their content in order to make it easy for users to share that content with others via e-mail or on specific social networking websites. I've encountered some stubs on Wikipedia and was hoping to share it with people I knew had knowledge on the subject so that they may consider expanding these stubs. However I've been compelled by the lack of share buttons manually to copy stubs' URLs into e-mail messages if I wished to share said stubs. My suggestion is that the stub notices that appear at the end of short articles contain these share buttons and that when a user shares an article with someone through one of these buttons, the message that the recipient receives contains the entire article (if it is short enough) with a direct link to edit the article, or a subsection of it. For example, a button following a stub article may ask, "Do you know someone with knowledge on this topic? Ask them to expand this article!" with the last sentence being a link that pops up a window allowing the user to type in e-mail addresses or to share the article on a social network. I believe that implementing such buttons will encourage common readers to share articles with their knowledged acquaintances more freely, hence encouraging greater participation in the project. Kind regards, Adriaan. Adriaan Joubert ( talk) 21:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Shekhar Chander is Lecturer in Computer Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekharchndr ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Swapping_order_of_categories_and_stub_templates there is a discussion about the order of categories and stub templates where an editor has suggested considering the elimination of all stub templates. I've suggested that they pursue that discussion here instead. Pam D 07:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no presence of the "latin script stub" on the stub type list, but countless articles have it! PhoenixSummon ( talk) 22:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been seeing a lot of stub templates and stub-class assessments being added to articles that contain considerably more than "only one or a few sentences of text" -- frequently on articles that contain a screenful (or more) of running text. These aren't just old templates, either; they're being actively added to articles of this size. I'm getting the impression that "stub" is now being used, at least by some active users, to label any article that could do with expansion or is otherwise less than perfect.
I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a number of years, so I went looking to see if there had been any change in the definition of "stub", but if there has been, it hasn't been reflected on this page. Does this page still reflect the community's understanding of what a stub is? -- Visviva ( talk) 02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
GreaterManchester-railstation-stub}}
to every page in the subcategories of
Category:Railway stations in Greater Manchester (e.g.
Manchester Victoria station). After dropping them a polite note, we found that they didn't know of
WP:STUB but had assumed that they were helping out by making the article easier to edit.Hello, I'm looking for clarification on stub articles vs. non-stub articles and the requirement of sources. Can an article without any reliable sources be considered anything but stub class? (Start or above)? Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 03:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I read: It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it, and another one after them before the interlanguage link. But someone rollback me twice. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
When is a stub no longer a stub? I know in AWB's tagging fixes, if it sees a page with 500 words or more with a stub tag it removes it. Is this a general guideline? An upper limit? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to label my first page as a stub ( Court of Justice of the European Union) and put the tag at the end as per the instructions on this page - that just made the tag appear at the end. Is this page wrong, did I do something wrong, or is every stub notification I have ever seen wrong? 86.164.194.233 ( talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't say that all France stubs should be in 'permcat' France. I guess that is taken for granted. Nor does the guideline suggest checking the permcats when a stub tag is removed, but that may be a good idea.
First, please confirm or correct my understanding. The latest edit of stub biography Mike Berenstain should be reverted. That page should be in both cats American children's writers and American children's writer stubs. (Stub categories are distinguished categories, I think we now say.)
User talk: HelicopterLlama and I are not sure about this. I have never checked the permcats when I have removed a stub tag, but I will try to remember to do that now. Perhaps the guideline should recommend it.
-- P64 ( talk) 18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Can further clarification be added to the Removing stub status section to explain how to remove a stub? What is the process? I've searched through Wikipedia but cannot find this information. Thanks. Physics114 ( talk) 09:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
journal-stub}}
) from the page. Stub codes are often at the bottom of the webpage.
Physics114 (
talk) 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Redundant_film_stub_tags. thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, am thinking of running a de-stubbing contest at User:Casliber/Stub contest (in the vein of the Core Contest), just as a one off alternative and see how it goes - similar prizes. Discuss on talk page. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Consider the article .csnet. It is very short, has no references – and has two stub tags. It is also accurate, complete, and useful. If I delete the stub tags it would seem likely that someone or some bot would only add them again – so I'll just leave those stub tags in place. Is there a "Not-a-stub" category or template? If not could someone create such? Or can an article be somehow packed to appear larger than stub-sized? Thanks, 50.136.247.190 ( talk) 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gleb W. Derujinsky has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"emigrated to the United States in 1909." should probably be "...1919." 73.49.1.29 ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a gross number of how many stubs there are in total on en.wikipedia? (I wasn't sure when and/or where we discussed this..?) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
A stub tag, then, makes the person who places it feel superior -- this article is too brief. If 30% of articles have a stub tag, it is meaningless -- like the 20% that are insufficiently referenced. Rhadow ( talk) 17:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
2010s-hiphop-single-stub}}
has
15 transclusions, so the possibility of having 60 songs for any one of 2010/11/12/13/14 are currently nil. Most period-based stub categories (such as those for
albums or
films) go to a particular decade; I'm not aware of any that are year-specific. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)A bot request, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 43, has been open related to removing stub tags from all redirects. Community input is welcome at the request. — xaosflux Talk 19:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
...will be run again in August. Signups are at Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to propose including some advice about over-tagging stubs on this page. Here's a previous discussion between TexasAndroid and BradMajors on the issue which looks reasonable as a basis for advice. Any comments? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
unreferenced stub}}
but that was merged to {{
unreferenced}}
five years ago, following
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 5#Template:Unreferenced stub. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
BLP sources}}
template is for BLPs which need additional references, so is more closely related to {{
refimprove}}
than to {{
unreferenced}}
. The BLP equivalent of the latter is {{
BLP unsourced}}
; but if it's a BLP, and it has no references at all, and it was created after 18 March 2010, give it a {{
BLP unsourced}}
and also a {{
subst:prod blp}}
. See
WP:BLPPROD. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{pp-vandalism}} 115.188.191.246 ( talk) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been challenged over the article on Arthonia. I think it is far too long to be considered a stub. But most of the content is a list, though the article does not announce itself as a list. I think we need clearer guidance on the issue of prose content as opposed to lists, tables etc. I am a humble stub sorter. I am not competent to pronounce on the quality of botanical articles. But I don't think they should be marked as stubs just because they are largely in list form. The same arguments apply to articles about football teams and the like. They often contain a lot of information in tabular form. That seems much more useful than trying to convey the same information in prose. I think articles should be considered as a whole. Excluding consideration of pictures, tables and the like seems perverse. But there seems to be a common view that in assessing whether an article is a stub only the prose content should be taken into account. Is that the proper policy? Rathfelder ( talk) 00:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think articles should be marked as stubs just because they are largely in list form. The same arguments apply to articles about football teams, elections, sporting competitions and the like. They often contain a lot of information in tabular form. That seems much more useful than trying to convey the same information in prose. I think articles should be considered as a whole. Excluding consideration of pictures, tables and the like seems perverse. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I would advise the "humble stub sorter" to make no changes to stub status and defer to the judgement of local editors when encountering this gray area. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought we had an essay, if not a guideline/policy on this topic, but I cannot find it. Can anyone link me to it (and ping me)? Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've put together a short but related essay at Wikipedia:Do not confuse stub status with non-notability. Please feel free to contribute.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Stubs for creation (SFC) is a proposed task force for Articles for creation. SFC will assist new editors in creating useful stubs on notable subjects. Please feel free to discuss and expand on the idea at Draft:Stubs for creation. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I really don´t get your boards issue with encyclopedic 1 paragraph overal coverage. Those are not stubs, they are ample and sufficient for any individual whom would review the section.
My opinion would be that your board would be looking for paparazzi grief, or worse, information to extort in populous form.
Kindly explain here why your thoughts are that an 8 inch flashcard would be a stub and that you just must sink the most reliable and pertinent information into a mush of swamping wordiness.
Very appreciative of your answer (that is, if you have what it takes to make and formulate a truthfull correct answer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 ( talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Within the encyclopedia britanica, written hardcover edition, an 86%+ (3SD+) of articles are short paragraphs no larger than an 8" flashcard. Many another, no larger then a 4" flashcard.
An encyclopedia must be concise and too the point, and in being so, not open to fast ´new age´ bible writ style wordy engineering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 ( talk) 20:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at the page Luc Plamondon. There's no stub template in the text itself, but on the talk page it mentions the assessment that was done and found that it was stub class. If that assessment is now outdated, should I edit it directly, or request a reassessment, or what? (Since it doesn't seem to be as straightforward as removing a template.) Flipping Mackerel ( talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that the wording here be changed. The idea that "it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length" is simply absurd, there is for example no way an article of the length of article like United States could be described as a stub. There must be a limit on when an article can be described as a stub, especially when Wikipedia already recommends that articles should avoid exceeding certain sizes per WP:SIZE. I'm only saying that because someone has been tagging many articles (600-1000 words in prose) as stubs. While these articles can certainly be expanded, they are not in any sense of the word stub. The wording here just encourages people to stick the stub tags where they should not be. Certainly unless an article is of high importance like United States, the use of the tag for articles should be avoided over certain article size. Hzh ( talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
simply absurdwhen "length" is taken to mean simply the length of the article and not of paragraphs of text. There are many articles on genera of organisms, for example, which contain lengthy lists of species, but are rightly classed as stubs because there is little or no other information – look at Agelena for example. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length,which by extending the argument from "a few paragraphs" to the word "impossible" implies that prose of many many paragraphs (theoretically an infinite number of paragraphs) long that are relevant and pertinent to subject would still be stubs simply because more could be written (it at no point suggests that what's written may be "irrelevant and incomprehensible" as you argued, simply that a lot more could be written). What kind of illogical argument is that? I would have written it very differently even if I want to argue that the should be no set size (which I don't), for example: "It is difficult to set a precise limit on size as even prose of a few paragraphs long may not adequately introduce basic information on a subject about which a lot more could be written..." Hzh ( talk) 10:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Howdy, for about 2 months, I've been indenting stubs on articles, as IMHO it's better visual optics. What are the views of others, on this matter? GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Using what markup? If you're using :
to do it, that's a no-go. It's abuse of
description list markup for something that's not a list.
WP:MOS and
MOS:ACCESS have been advising for years to not use that markup in articles for visual indentation. The safest markup for something like that would be {{
block indent| {{
cooking-stub}} }}
. MoS has no position on stub tag indentation; so it's up to people here if they object as a site-wide matter, and up to individual articles' editorial pools if they object there. The principal objection someone might raise would be inconsistency between articles, probably.
Here's a template demo, first with just the stub tag:
Now, with the template:
There are other indentation templates, but this one is a block element, so you can put more than one stub tag in it:
{{block indent| {{cooking-stub}} {{Egypt-stub}} {{health-stub}} }}
All that said, given that people have been arguing for a decade on 1 or 2 blank lines before the stub tags, I doubt there'd be consensus to start indenting them any time soon. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
:
. In addition to the markup concern noted by SMcCandlish, personally I do not find it visually appealing. It looks "off" somehow (misaligned), particularly when it appears immediately after references, which are already indented. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)This edit on 5 November 2017 changed stub placement guidance from "two blank lines" to "one blank line". Given this issue has been discussed multiple times before, was there consensus for this change? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Example: Rape (film). This article is the only article in which I have seen it. Interqwark talk contribs 20:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to suggest for the practice of adding two blank lines before the first stub to be replaced with Template:Clear instead. As per Manual of Style, stub templates are meant to be at the very end line of a stub article but sometimes it is not visually reflected when published. This is particularly true for those which have an infobox and for some reason it is longer that the entire article content (until references or external links section), and where there are no navboxes or anything that can indirectly function as a line break preceding stub templates. With the Template:Clear, these stub articles may have a more uniform visual with those in which the stub templates are naturally rendered at the very bottom of the article. Zulfadli51 ( talk) 04:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Principal listed has spelling error. Should be Brian Young. Also there are two principals. Should read: Co-Principals Brian Young and Dina Marschall
Student Population is 550 on average 163.41.25.43 ( talk) 15:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I had not even known this was a thing before I had it pointed out to me when I was reverted over it by a user on an article today. I found being reverted over this extremely pedantic, and from looking back through this page it appears I'm not the only one. As others have pointed out, this guideline does not state why we need two blank lines at the end of the article before the template. I have never seen this enforced by any other editor, and honestly, it seems most editors don't care about it (quite appropriately, if I say so myself). I see it's been discussed here to death. There really needs to be consensus on this, especially if some editors are so pedantic about it they will revert "violations" of it. Ss 112 23:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
John Hoskin was an artist in residence at the University of Georgia from 1973-1974. He donated a sculpture to the Institute of Ecology. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Lawrence Stueck (
talk) 00:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am the current principal of the school (dkeller@staugustinehigh.com).
Change Motto: From:Jesus says we're allowed to kick your ass To: Persistence Pays
Change Authority: From: Jesus To: Diocese of Tucson
REMOVE Chaplain
Change Enrollment From: 140 To: 300
REMOVE Fight Song
REMOVE Nickname
Change Athletic Director From: Andrew Salazar To: Kyle Howell 24.249.172.61 ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Given that "you can improve this by expanding it" became a meme, maybe this template should be reworded? 179.228.66.29 ( talk) 14:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
My edit [2] was reverted. I explained my edit with the following edit summary: "Formulate this a bit more careful and a bit more correct.". No explanatory edit summary was provided by the reverting editor. That lack of etiquette notwithstanding, I'll explain my edit.
In my opinion "usually not considered" is less correct than "play a secondary role". It is pretty obvious that anything that is sometimes considered is practically always considered. I mean, how else would one know whether to consider it in any given case. The true meaning is of that phrase that it is always considered, just that it is not usually the decisive consideration. Which is precisely what I said when stating it is of secondary importance. Debresser ( talk) 15:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
In:
Wikipedia:Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub / 2nd paragraph / 1st sentence there is a lengthy enumeration.
And before (such) a lengthy enumeration it is: good, generally helpfull considered and generally agreed upon style, to put a colon. Reference (e.g.): Thorndike Barnhart: Worldbook Dictionary / prechapters.
Therefore I added a colon in above article.
User:Collins Gatheru thanked me for this colon. Thank you CG.
However
User:Niccast considered this colon to be: erroneous and confusing and, consequently, removed it.
Therfore I would like to come to know other readers' opinions on this issue.
This, by the way, does not only concern this article and location, but all articles here in the WP.
Steue (
talk) 20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest Wikipedia:Stub might benefit from an edit which strives make it more readable for beginning (or infrequent) editors wanting to create a stub article in an existing category, which seems like it would be the most common use-case.
Perhaps I'm wrong, is there another there a page I should look at to help me remember about creating stub articles? If so an info box linking to it at the top of this article would seem appropriate.
While topics like guidelines for creating new stub templates are important, it seems like linked topic could best address that sort of context rather than prose in this context. Burt Harris ( talk) 00:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If an article meets the notability requirements, but the majority of what's known doesn't amount to much, does that still constitute a stub? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should be the recommended minimum size for stub categories? Should an exception be adopted for accepted subcategory schemes, as for WP:SMALLCAT? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
?? The RFC first got advertised on November 3, 2020 North8000 ( talk) 13:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but until I saw it in the Spotlight I didn't know about the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Get_rid_of_stub_tags which began on 21 June. I hope the rest of you did. Pam D 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The last RfC closed as no consensus due to inactivity. Using feedback from the "closer", I will try again as follows:
On determining if a stub type is useful, Wikipedia:Stub currently reads:
4. Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly created stub type has 100–300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified in the case of the main stub category used by a WikiProject.)
RfC extended – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC) originally opened – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:-)
Will there be a workable number of editors interested in articles fitting this category?I suspect that WikiProjects or other organised collections of editors should define workable to suit their specific project. So, if there is a project or a group within a WikiProject specifically covered WW2 aircraft, then there should be a matching stub type {{ WW2-aircraft-stub}}. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Would the usability initiative be able to provide any input into decisions about how stub templates and categories are used? Basically what we have is a sensible arrangement derived from reasonable, but untested assumptions, we have one and a half million stubs, and no way of knowing how effective tagging, categorising etc are. We could of course do some simple tests ourselves. For example take a sample of 20,000 stubs and de-tag half, wait a month and see if there was a difference in the percentage expanded. Or try different tagging methods or location. Or try advertising 100 selected stubs via different means (subject projects, clean-up projects, Signpost, talk pages, mailing lists, universities).
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
I made a change change to this guideline, removing the requirement to have two blank lines before stub templates, and was reverted on the argument that the outcome of this archived discussion was not I as I think. I find that very arguable. See also this discussion, where two blank lines was said to give "the desired spaceing". This is precisely what I contest. I think the outcome of the old discussion here was that such spacing is not deemed necessary by most. Your opinions please. Debresser ( talk) 09:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
Chile-geo-stub}}
(if it were normal height it'd be too narrow to see). On
Iquique Province it's given two blank lines beforehand, on
Laguna del Laja National Park just one;
Laja Lake has none. I don't think that being without a gap is such a big problem. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
<!-- Categories -->
and such. I remember that when I was a newbie, I briefly thought that {{Foo}}
and [[Category:Foo]]
were redundant.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (moved from
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout) by
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
[Parenthetical note:One blank line will display the same as zero blank lines, an uncategorised stub with a defaultsort will have too much space, however this is likely to be a temporary and rare occurrence]
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
Over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Tag_for_stubbed_pages? we're discussing what to do about some articles that need stubbing due to long-term pollution. I think we want a tag, something like "This is a stubbed version of a much longer article that was found to have problems. You may see the earlier version at []. Please help us rebuild it". Is there any precedent for this? William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have started a discussion over on GNG, which mostly relates to stubs - and similar issues to those in the section above, except it is concerning the need for minimal reliable sources in articles - even if they're stubs.
Please comment over there: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Articles need multiple sources.
Best, Chzz ► 22:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Haven't you got something more useful to do with your time Chzz? Geographical place names only need verification of existence. And my Benin stubs have government population data. Expecting lots of web sources for towns in places like Benin is hardly indicative of its level of notability or level of encyclopedic appropriateness. A single source to government figures or other reliable source is enough to make it valid, at least as a start. If you genuinely wanted to improve our coverage of the "Global South" then a mention and fact about the places is far far better than if it didn't exist at all. If you still have a problem with that then I suggest you learn to accept it or simply shut up. The web is still in its infancy and more and more sources are becoming available for third world locations and topics all the time. Take the Communes of Mali for instance. There are a lot of USAID case studies on them on the web.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above has brought out many useful viewpoints. I will try to summarize them before asking for input to a straw poll. But I am not comfortable that we are giving enough weight to the reader's experience and would like to first open discussion on that. Whatever our hopes are that stubs will somehow encourage editors to add content, the question of whether stubs are useful to readers is not one to be ignored. Wikipedia is for readers, not for editors. If readers get even more cynical about Wikipedia, most of the work put into the project will have been wasted. Here is a scenario. The article on the famous Ruritanian poet Hyrmant Schlanzk includes the following:
When a reader searches on Xtrynyr, they will find the article on the poet Schlanzk, and will learn something about the village. Now we make a stub that says "Xtrynyr is a community in Ruritania". When the user enters "Xtrynyr" in the search box and presses ENTER, that is all they get. Before, the search results gave some information about Xtrynyr. Now, the reader is stuck in a stub that tells them next to nothing. I am not sure about the wording, but there must be some way to say that a stub is not good if it reduces the amount of information a reader would find on a search result. Thoughts on how stubs increase or reduce the value of Wikipedia to readers? Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Redlinks more informative in some cases". I would thoroughly disagree, especially on stubs with intertranswiki tags. If the articles inform the reader that it is located in .... even that is more informative than nothing at all. Any "empty" stubs I've created have the translation tags in which one can click google translate link and immediately be presented with the information to the reader in english. Sorry Aymatth, but I think your distaste of the shorter stubs is affecting your outlook. A lot of editors are willing to add to an article but unwilling to create it. And if editors hate short stubs in their preferences they can simply programme a minimum KB size. You could simply change it in your preference to avoid clicking on articles and getting the "annoying lack of content". I would agree that one fact and one source bare minimum should be a rule but then this would exclude new articles from newbies who may start notable subjects and have them deleted because they don't know about sourcing. I think you're pretty much wasting your time with this as there is unlikely to be a "rule" which stops them from being created. If just a guideline if merely says "we frown upon this", not as if I wasn't aware of that already!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I notice on many websites they provide useful buttons beneath their content in order to make it easy for users to share that content with others via e-mail or on specific social networking websites. I've encountered some stubs on Wikipedia and was hoping to share it with people I knew had knowledge on the subject so that they may consider expanding these stubs. However I've been compelled by the lack of share buttons manually to copy stubs' URLs into e-mail messages if I wished to share said stubs. My suggestion is that the stub notices that appear at the end of short articles contain these share buttons and that when a user shares an article with someone through one of these buttons, the message that the recipient receives contains the entire article (if it is short enough) with a direct link to edit the article, or a subsection of it. For example, a button following a stub article may ask, "Do you know someone with knowledge on this topic? Ask them to expand this article!" with the last sentence being a link that pops up a window allowing the user to type in e-mail addresses or to share the article on a social network. I believe that implementing such buttons will encourage common readers to share articles with their knowledged acquaintances more freely, hence encouraging greater participation in the project. Kind regards, Adriaan. Adriaan Joubert ( talk) 21:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Shekhar Chander is Lecturer in Computer Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekharchndr ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Swapping_order_of_categories_and_stub_templates there is a discussion about the order of categories and stub templates where an editor has suggested considering the elimination of all stub templates. I've suggested that they pursue that discussion here instead. Pam D 07:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no presence of the "latin script stub" on the stub type list, but countless articles have it! PhoenixSummon ( talk) 22:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been seeing a lot of stub templates and stub-class assessments being added to articles that contain considerably more than "only one or a few sentences of text" -- frequently on articles that contain a screenful (or more) of running text. These aren't just old templates, either; they're being actively added to articles of this size. I'm getting the impression that "stub" is now being used, at least by some active users, to label any article that could do with expansion or is otherwise less than perfect.
I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a number of years, so I went looking to see if there had been any change in the definition of "stub", but if there has been, it hasn't been reflected on this page. Does this page still reflect the community's understanding of what a stub is? -- Visviva ( talk) 02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
GreaterManchester-railstation-stub}}
to every page in the subcategories of
Category:Railway stations in Greater Manchester (e.g.
Manchester Victoria station). After dropping them a polite note, we found that they didn't know of
WP:STUB but had assumed that they were helping out by making the article easier to edit.Hello, I'm looking for clarification on stub articles vs. non-stub articles and the requirement of sources. Can an article without any reliable sources be considered anything but stub class? (Start or above)? Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 ( talk) 03:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I read: It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it, and another one after them before the interlanguage link. But someone rollback me twice. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
When is a stub no longer a stub? I know in AWB's tagging fixes, if it sees a page with 500 words or more with a stub tag it removes it. Is this a general guideline? An upper limit? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to label my first page as a stub ( Court of Justice of the European Union) and put the tag at the end as per the instructions on this page - that just made the tag appear at the end. Is this page wrong, did I do something wrong, or is every stub notification I have ever seen wrong? 86.164.194.233 ( talk) 18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't say that all France stubs should be in 'permcat' France. I guess that is taken for granted. Nor does the guideline suggest checking the permcats when a stub tag is removed, but that may be a good idea.
First, please confirm or correct my understanding. The latest edit of stub biography Mike Berenstain should be reverted. That page should be in both cats American children's writers and American children's writer stubs. (Stub categories are distinguished categories, I think we now say.)
User talk: HelicopterLlama and I are not sure about this. I have never checked the permcats when I have removed a stub tag, but I will try to remember to do that now. Perhaps the guideline should recommend it.
-- P64 ( talk) 18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Can further clarification be added to the Removing stub status section to explain how to remove a stub? What is the process? I've searched through Wikipedia but cannot find this information. Thanks. Physics114 ( talk) 09:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
journal-stub}}
) from the page. Stub codes are often at the bottom of the webpage.
Physics114 (
talk) 14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Redundant_film_stub_tags. thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, am thinking of running a de-stubbing contest at User:Casliber/Stub contest (in the vein of the Core Contest), just as a one off alternative and see how it goes - similar prizes. Discuss on talk page. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Consider the article .csnet. It is very short, has no references – and has two stub tags. It is also accurate, complete, and useful. If I delete the stub tags it would seem likely that someone or some bot would only add them again – so I'll just leave those stub tags in place. Is there a "Not-a-stub" category or template? If not could someone create such? Or can an article be somehow packed to appear larger than stub-sized? Thanks, 50.136.247.190 ( talk) 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gleb W. Derujinsky has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"emigrated to the United States in 1909." should probably be "...1919." 73.49.1.29 ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a gross number of how many stubs there are in total on en.wikipedia? (I wasn't sure when and/or where we discussed this..?) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
A stub tag, then, makes the person who places it feel superior -- this article is too brief. If 30% of articles have a stub tag, it is meaningless -- like the 20% that are insufficiently referenced. Rhadow ( talk) 17:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
2010s-hiphop-single-stub}}
has
15 transclusions, so the possibility of having 60 songs for any one of 2010/11/12/13/14 are currently nil. Most period-based stub categories (such as those for
albums or
films) go to a particular decade; I'm not aware of any that are year-specific. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)A bot request, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 43, has been open related to removing stub tags from all redirects. Community input is welcome at the request. — xaosflux Talk 19:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
...will be run again in August. Signups are at Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to propose including some advice about over-tagging stubs on this page. Here's a previous discussion between TexasAndroid and BradMajors on the issue which looks reasonable as a basis for advice. Any comments? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
unreferenced stub}}
but that was merged to {{
unreferenced}}
five years ago, following
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 5#Template:Unreferenced stub. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
BLP sources}}
template is for BLPs which need additional references, so is more closely related to {{
refimprove}}
than to {{
unreferenced}}
. The BLP equivalent of the latter is {{
BLP unsourced}}
; but if it's a BLP, and it has no references at all, and it was created after 18 March 2010, give it a {{
BLP unsourced}}
and also a {{
subst:prod blp}}
. See
WP:BLPPROD. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{pp-vandalism}} 115.188.191.246 ( talk) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been challenged over the article on Arthonia. I think it is far too long to be considered a stub. But most of the content is a list, though the article does not announce itself as a list. I think we need clearer guidance on the issue of prose content as opposed to lists, tables etc. I am a humble stub sorter. I am not competent to pronounce on the quality of botanical articles. But I don't think they should be marked as stubs just because they are largely in list form. The same arguments apply to articles about football teams and the like. They often contain a lot of information in tabular form. That seems much more useful than trying to convey the same information in prose. I think articles should be considered as a whole. Excluding consideration of pictures, tables and the like seems perverse. But there seems to be a common view that in assessing whether an article is a stub only the prose content should be taken into account. Is that the proper policy? Rathfelder ( talk) 00:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think articles should be marked as stubs just because they are largely in list form. The same arguments apply to articles about football teams, elections, sporting competitions and the like. They often contain a lot of information in tabular form. That seems much more useful than trying to convey the same information in prose. I think articles should be considered as a whole. Excluding consideration of pictures, tables and the like seems perverse. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I would advise the "humble stub sorter" to make no changes to stub status and defer to the judgement of local editors when encountering this gray area. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought we had an essay, if not a guideline/policy on this topic, but I cannot find it. Can anyone link me to it (and ping me)? Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've put together a short but related essay at Wikipedia:Do not confuse stub status with non-notability. Please feel free to contribute.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Stubs for creation (SFC) is a proposed task force for Articles for creation. SFC will assist new editors in creating useful stubs on notable subjects. Please feel free to discuss and expand on the idea at Draft:Stubs for creation. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I really don´t get your boards issue with encyclopedic 1 paragraph overal coverage. Those are not stubs, they are ample and sufficient for any individual whom would review the section.
My opinion would be that your board would be looking for paparazzi grief, or worse, information to extort in populous form.
Kindly explain here why your thoughts are that an 8 inch flashcard would be a stub and that you just must sink the most reliable and pertinent information into a mush of swamping wordiness.
Very appreciative of your answer (that is, if you have what it takes to make and formulate a truthfull correct answer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 ( talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Within the encyclopedia britanica, written hardcover edition, an 86%+ (3SD+) of articles are short paragraphs no larger than an 8" flashcard. Many another, no larger then a 4" flashcard.
An encyclopedia must be concise and too the point, and in being so, not open to fast ´new age´ bible writ style wordy engineering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 ( talk) 20:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at the page Luc Plamondon. There's no stub template in the text itself, but on the talk page it mentions the assessment that was done and found that it was stub class. If that assessment is now outdated, should I edit it directly, or request a reassessment, or what? (Since it doesn't seem to be as straightforward as removing a template.) Flipping Mackerel ( talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that the wording here be changed. The idea that "it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length" is simply absurd, there is for example no way an article of the length of article like United States could be described as a stub. There must be a limit on when an article can be described as a stub, especially when Wikipedia already recommends that articles should avoid exceeding certain sizes per WP:SIZE. I'm only saying that because someone has been tagging many articles (600-1000 words in prose) as stubs. While these articles can certainly be expanded, they are not in any sense of the word stub. The wording here just encourages people to stick the stub tags where they should not be. Certainly unless an article is of high importance like United States, the use of the tag for articles should be avoided over certain article size. Hzh ( talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
simply absurdwhen "length" is taken to mean simply the length of the article and not of paragraphs of text. There are many articles on genera of organisms, for example, which contain lengthy lists of species, but are rightly classed as stubs because there is little or no other information – look at Agelena for example. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length,which by extending the argument from "a few paragraphs" to the word "impossible" implies that prose of many many paragraphs (theoretically an infinite number of paragraphs) long that are relevant and pertinent to subject would still be stubs simply because more could be written (it at no point suggests that what's written may be "irrelevant and incomprehensible" as you argued, simply that a lot more could be written). What kind of illogical argument is that? I would have written it very differently even if I want to argue that the should be no set size (which I don't), for example: "It is difficult to set a precise limit on size as even prose of a few paragraphs long may not adequately introduce basic information on a subject about which a lot more could be written..." Hzh ( talk) 10:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Howdy, for about 2 months, I've been indenting stubs on articles, as IMHO it's better visual optics. What are the views of others, on this matter? GoodDay ( talk) 15:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Using what markup? If you're using :
to do it, that's a no-go. It's abuse of
description list markup for something that's not a list.
WP:MOS and
MOS:ACCESS have been advising for years to not use that markup in articles for visual indentation. The safest markup for something like that would be {{
block indent| {{
cooking-stub}} }}
. MoS has no position on stub tag indentation; so it's up to people here if they object as a site-wide matter, and up to individual articles' editorial pools if they object there. The principal objection someone might raise would be inconsistency between articles, probably.
Here's a template demo, first with just the stub tag:
Now, with the template:
There are other indentation templates, but this one is a block element, so you can put more than one stub tag in it:
{{block indent| {{cooking-stub}} {{Egypt-stub}} {{health-stub}} }}
All that said, given that people have been arguing for a decade on 1 or 2 blank lines before the stub tags, I doubt there'd be consensus to start indenting them any time soon. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
:
. In addition to the markup concern noted by SMcCandlish, personally I do not find it visually appealing. It looks "off" somehow (misaligned), particularly when it appears immediately after references, which are already indented. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)This edit on 5 November 2017 changed stub placement guidance from "two blank lines" to "one blank line". Given this issue has been discussed multiple times before, was there consensus for this change? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Example: Rape (film). This article is the only article in which I have seen it. Interqwark talk contribs 20:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to suggest for the practice of adding two blank lines before the first stub to be replaced with Template:Clear instead. As per Manual of Style, stub templates are meant to be at the very end line of a stub article but sometimes it is not visually reflected when published. This is particularly true for those which have an infobox and for some reason it is longer that the entire article content (until references or external links section), and where there are no navboxes or anything that can indirectly function as a line break preceding stub templates. With the Template:Clear, these stub articles may have a more uniform visual with those in which the stub templates are naturally rendered at the very bottom of the article. Zulfadli51 ( talk) 04:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Principal listed has spelling error. Should be Brian Young. Also there are two principals. Should read: Co-Principals Brian Young and Dina Marschall
Student Population is 550 on average 163.41.25.43 ( talk) 15:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I had not even known this was a thing before I had it pointed out to me when I was reverted over it by a user on an article today. I found being reverted over this extremely pedantic, and from looking back through this page it appears I'm not the only one. As others have pointed out, this guideline does not state why we need two blank lines at the end of the article before the template. I have never seen this enforced by any other editor, and honestly, it seems most editors don't care about it (quite appropriately, if I say so myself). I see it's been discussed here to death. There really needs to be consensus on this, especially if some editors are so pedantic about it they will revert "violations" of it. Ss 112 23:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
John Hoskin was an artist in residence at the University of Georgia from 1973-1974. He donated a sculpture to the Institute of Ecology. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Lawrence Stueck (
talk) 00:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Stub has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am the current principal of the school (dkeller@staugustinehigh.com).
Change Motto: From:Jesus says we're allowed to kick your ass To: Persistence Pays
Change Authority: From: Jesus To: Diocese of Tucson
REMOVE Chaplain
Change Enrollment From: 140 To: 300
REMOVE Fight Song
REMOVE Nickname
Change Athletic Director From: Andrew Salazar To: Kyle Howell 24.249.172.61 ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Given that "you can improve this by expanding it" became a meme, maybe this template should be reworded? 179.228.66.29 ( talk) 14:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
My edit [2] was reverted. I explained my edit with the following edit summary: "Formulate this a bit more careful and a bit more correct.". No explanatory edit summary was provided by the reverting editor. That lack of etiquette notwithstanding, I'll explain my edit.
In my opinion "usually not considered" is less correct than "play a secondary role". It is pretty obvious that anything that is sometimes considered is practically always considered. I mean, how else would one know whether to consider it in any given case. The true meaning is of that phrase that it is always considered, just that it is not usually the decisive consideration. Which is precisely what I said when stating it is of secondary importance. Debresser ( talk) 15:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
In:
Wikipedia:Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub / 2nd paragraph / 1st sentence there is a lengthy enumeration.
And before (such) a lengthy enumeration it is: good, generally helpfull considered and generally agreed upon style, to put a colon. Reference (e.g.): Thorndike Barnhart: Worldbook Dictionary / prechapters.
Therefore I added a colon in above article.
User:Collins Gatheru thanked me for this colon. Thank you CG.
However
User:Niccast considered this colon to be: erroneous and confusing and, consequently, removed it.
Therfore I would like to come to know other readers' opinions on this issue.
This, by the way, does not only concern this article and location, but all articles here in the WP.
Steue (
talk) 20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest Wikipedia:Stub might benefit from an edit which strives make it more readable for beginning (or infrequent) editors wanting to create a stub article in an existing category, which seems like it would be the most common use-case.
Perhaps I'm wrong, is there another there a page I should look at to help me remember about creating stub articles? If so an info box linking to it at the top of this article would seem appropriate.
While topics like guidelines for creating new stub templates are important, it seems like linked topic could best address that sort of context rather than prose in this context. Burt Harris ( talk) 00:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
If an article meets the notability requirements, but the majority of what's known doesn't amount to much, does that still constitute a stub? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should be the recommended minimum size for stub categories? Should an exception be adopted for accepted subcategory schemes, as for WP:SMALLCAT? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
?? The RFC first got advertised on November 3, 2020 North8000 ( talk) 13:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but until I saw it in the Spotlight I didn't know about the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Get_rid_of_stub_tags which began on 21 June. I hope the rest of you did. Pam D 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The last RfC closed as no consensus due to inactivity. Using feedback from the "closer", I will try again as follows:
On determining if a stub type is useful, Wikipedia:Stub currently reads:
4. Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly created stub type has 100–300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a minimum of 60 articles. This threshold is modified in the case of the main stub category used by a WikiProject.)
RfC extended – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC) originally opened – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:-)
Will there be a workable number of editors interested in articles fitting this category?I suspect that WikiProjects or other organised collections of editors should define workable to suit their specific project. So, if there is a project or a group within a WikiProject specifically covered WW2 aircraft, then there should be a matching stub type {{ WW2-aircraft-stub}}. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)