Wikipedia talk:Stub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Most of the discussion relating to this and other stub categories occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. You may wish to consider leaving a note there rather than here.
Warning: Stubitis!
Warning: Stubitis!
Archive
Archives
Index


Contents

[edit] Stub without icon

{{theat-struct-stub}} has no icon. Where can I request that one be added. Reply at my talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony - I'm replying both here and on your talk page, since this does come up occasionally. There's no mandatory requirement for a stub icon, and, in fact, they were considered harmful to the servers in the past (see Wikipedia:Suspend use of stub icons), though that seems to have blown over with improvements to the servers. Though stub icons are nominally dealt with as part of WP:WSS, for the most part there is little control exercised over them except in cases where there may be controversy. Feel free to add your own (perhaps using some other iconned stub template as a guide), but please follow these simple guidelines:
1) the image should preferably be no bigger than about 40 or 50px in its longest dimension (we did have a full discussion about the size at some point, but I can't remember exactly where the discussion is or what its outcome was - keeping the icon to this size should not cause too much concern, however).
2) ensure that the image is free - "fair use" cannot be claimed for stub icons.
3) make sure it's an image that will look good at this tiny size, and try to make it as symbolic or recognisably "of its subject" as possible - a famous theatre, such as London's restored Globe Theatre, or a symbolic icon such as the smiling and frowning theatrical masks, is probably most suitable.

yea man. dont you get it? Grutness...wha? 00:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a stub to a page

When you add a stub to a page, should you first remove any existing stubs from the page? Or can a page have multiple stubs on it? SqlPac 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncomon for a page to have two stub tags on it. More than three is very rare and IMO almost always a very bad idea. Three is dubious, in most cases. DES (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Having up to four stub templates is acceptable, and multiple stubbing is in general a very good idea if a subject crosses multiple subject types. I guess MO is at odds with DES's :) Grutness...wha? 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are instances where one could argue either DES's or Grutness's case with some success. One should certainly try to avoid any obvious duplication: if you're adding {{US-writer-stub}}, leaving either {{writer-stub}} or {{US-bio-stub}} in place would be far from ideal. OTOH, many stub types are split on more than one axis (such as people, by occupation and by nationality), often requiring the use of two. Musicians are routinely sorted by nationality, instrument, and genre. Add to which the possibility of overlap between sibling topics (multiple nationalities, several occipations, etc). But there's at least fairly common consent that more than one is acceptable, but that after a certain number, one is getting into diminishing returns and/or wretched excess. Alai 16:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In my particular case, since I largely concentrate on geo-stubs, a major problem occurs with stubs on rivers, mountain ranges, and other features that cross or form international boundaries. If there was a stub on the the Pyrenees, Euro-geo-stub is clearly too vague, but you cannot use Spain-geo-stub without also using France-geo-stub and Andorra-geo-stub without the chance of an international incident or at least accusations of bias - and using just the one stub also doesn't help editors who deal with French otr Andorran geography. There are definitely cases where multiple stubbing is a distinct advantage. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the geo-stubs are (largely) only split on the one axis, so it's (largely) just a matter of sibling-overlap. In theory, articles relating to very large numbers of countries or sub-divisions should be much less likely to be stubs... At any rate, the judgement call in such instances is, just how many sibling-stubs to add before it's better to kick for touch back into the parent? (I'd guess opinions on that hover around three or four.) Alai 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nina

How can be a lady (SHE's) a man (the KING)89.6.154.187 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this question should be addressed to Marty Willson-Piper, not to us. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a good example of a stub?

Could you check out the stub I wrote on Bee Playing Cards? Did I categorize it correctly? Should it have a {{stub}} tag or an {{expand}} tag? (Oman9978 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] So.....

Do we extend a stub? I want to extend to Wookipedia Ko Vakier page... --72.183.115.91 12:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean do you extend any articles marked with stub templates, yes - that is the whole reason they are marked, so that editors know which articles are in severe need of help. We don't have a Wookiepedia Ko Vakier" page, though, or even a "Ko Vakier" page, so you can't really extend them! Grutness...wha? 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Grutness, quite right. Anything marked with a sign reading 'This ARTICLE THEME HERE article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.' The last bit explains it all, really!Clown face 2007 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In The Rest Of The World

I was going to create a stub for a photography website I came across (www.InTheRestOfTheWorld.com). How do I go about doing so, and would this be a good idea?

All the details are at Help:Starting_a_new_page, though that is a pretty confusing page. It largely depends on whether or not you are a registered user. if you are, then all you need do is enter the title you want in the menu bar (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InTheRestOfTheWorld.com) and click on the link that says "create the article". if you're not a registered user, you can't create an article, but you can request a new article and provide enough info for it to be written up by someone who is registered, by going to Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. As to whether the article's a good idea, I don't know. It largely depends on how big or well-known the site is. You could try googling it, to see how many hits it gets on other sites, or simply be bold and create the article anyway (if it's not notable enough for its own article, it will probably be nominated for deletion again). Grutness...wha? 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are stubs immune to reference requirements?

I've been tagging a number of stubs with the {{unreferenced}} tag. Not all, but some of the smallest ones with the least information. Recently I got reverted on one of these with the edit message: "rv unhelpful tag - IT'S A STUB". I was not aware that being a stub made an article free from verifiability requirements. So before I revert the revert, getting into an edit war, I wanted to get some additional opinions on whether I'm correct in my actions, or whether I've been correctly reverted. - TexasAndroid 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're "immune", but one might well want to "go easy on the tags", when it comes to very short articles. If one ends up with uncategorised, unreferenced, orphaned, stub, and cleanup templates all on the same article, one is probably over-egging things, to take an extreme case, even if all individually apply. "Stub" obviously implies "needs assorted sorts of work done on it", so personally I'd only apply additional tags if the case seems especially egregious. (e.g. extensive or fishy-looking claims being made, which are more on the lines of "cite or remove" rather than "some references would be nice here".) Alai 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Stubs are not immune to verifiability, it is just that adding an "unreferenced" tag is not helpful. It is understood that a stub is missing many things, so it would be expected that one of its features would be that its statements may be unreferenced. The wording including in the "unreferenced" tag is particularly onerous in that it states that if references are not supplied the content can be removed which for a stub would not make sense. BradMajors (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of stub tags on a page

This has been a sore point with me for awhile and I need to find out what the official rule is. I believe that in the editing, stub tags should go a) above categories and b) above any sort of template boxes and the like. The former is based upon my understanding of how stub tags were to be placed, while the second is a style preference because otherwise the stub tags are often rendered invisible because on shorter articles with template boxes they often under up "below the screen jump" if you get my meaning.

A bunch of stub articles I created have had their stub tags moved to the bottom -- under the categories and under a rather sizable template box. Before I start reverting, what is the rule for placement? I couldn't find anything on this at WP:MOS. Thanks. 23skidoo 16:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The official rule is that there is no official rule. The late SPUI was gung-ho for the "least important" stub cats appearing last (so therefore placing the tag after the explicit categories), but there was never any general agreement to that effect. However, I very strongly recommend not placing them before any non-maintenance templates (such as navboxes, etc). To do so would be to essentially interleave article content with meta-content; better to have the latter clustered together. Alai 20:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The de facto standard has been to place things in this order at page-bottom:
  • References and other standard page-bottom sections
  • Navigation boxes
  • Categories
  • Two blank lines and then stub tags
  • Interwikis (fr, it, etc.)
It is fairly uncommon to see them out of this order. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Both Alai and SMcC are perhaps being a bit more lenient than some stub sorters - it does say at Wikipedia:Stub#Categorizing stubs that stub templates go under all other templates and also under the categories, so though it's not policy, it is the accepted procedural guideline, and chances are that if you change them back, someone will come along and revert what you've done at some point (I'm actually surprised it's not mentioned at WP:MOS, though that does list this page in its "Further guidance" links, so perhaps some of the finer details are left off the main MOS page - it's a pretty long page as it is). It's not something that we're particularly strict on, but I'd say that they should definitely always go after any navigation boxes or other large templates - adding the stub template before them forms a break that may well discourage readers from reading any furhter, since they do have the effect of saying "this is all we have". Whether they go above or below the categories is a bit more of a matter of individual taste, though putting the stub templates after them does push the stub category to the end of the list of categories, which is a little more useful for readers. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to be known as a hardass or anything, I think what I outlined agrees with your take. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, I suppose it does. I think the main point I was making is that "no official rule" and "de facto rule" both seem to indicate that it's something not written into any of the style pages anywhere as instructions, whereas WP:STUB does spell things out fairly precisely. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above, I see that there is in fact an MoS statement on this issue, however for the record I think it renders the tags useless. Placing it under the templates in many cases makes the stub tags disappear "after the jump" rather than appearing prominently under the main text. Similarly, if an article has a lot of categories but happens to be a stub, the tag also disappears in a sense into the list (although of course its placement in the edit page has no bearing on where it appears on the screen as it still appears above the category tags in any event). I just feel that hiding stub tags under the templates a) looks poor from a page layout perspective and b) drastically reduces their effectiveness in calling attention to the fact that the article in question needs more content. This is NOT always self-evident, especially with new users and with articles that might have large templates and infoboxes attached. For an example, go to Pot Luck (album). At present, the stub tag has been placed above the large Elvis Presley template (I agree BTW the template is too large but that's another issue). Now imagine the tag placed under the template; unless you happen to be using a portfolio screen, odds are you won't see it unless you scroll down and most people won't scroll down. 23skidoo 17:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the point. They're not supposed to be noticeable on the articles - their intended purpose is to put articles into categories where they can be easily found. We don't want stub templates to be obtrusive to readers, but we do want stub articles to be easily found by editors. The only real reason for having text on a stub template is so that it's clear that an article has been stubbed - giving instruction of what to do is an added bonus. As such, having them hidden at the bottom of an article makes perfect sense - certainly far more sense than breaking into the middle of an article by having them appear before navigation boxes or reference lists. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean the "style guidance" on this page? I'd be pleasantly surprised if that's anything remotely like a stable consensus, rather than just the view of whatever editor got there last. :) It's maybe not ideal in the case where a tiny amount of stub text is followed by the honking huge nav templates favoured by editors in certain domains, and then the stub tag, but the majority of stubs are, after all, much less than a rendered page, and most of those that are longer are not exactly what you'd call "core stubs". In line with what Grutness says, it does seem the least-worst option. Alai 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to beg to differ on the rationale for stub tags. I don't see them as things to hide in a corner. They should be right in the open, to draw attention to not just the community -- who as far as I'm concerned are the converted already -- but to newcomers who might not realize that their input is encouraged. Also, it increases the ability of more serious editors to quickly discern if the article is correctly stub-tagged under the right criteria (and a category isn't always going to help with that). And while its true that templates often overwhelm the shorter articles, they are becoming more and more commonplace -- in some cases being preferred to catgeories -- so we just have to live with that. I also have issue with the stub tags appearing under categories in the edit pages. That has no impact on how it appears on the article page, but there have been many times where I've seen the stub tags hidden in the middle of a category list or a set of foreign-language links. 23skidoo 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as far as as several of those points are concerned.
They should be right in the open, to draw attention. Surely you can tell by looking at an article whether it is a stub. The main purpose of a stub template is not to draw attention to this fact, which should be obvious, but rather to categorise the stub article.
It increases the ability... to quickly discern if the article is correctly stub-tagged. It's far easier to check that if the stub template is right at the bottom than it is if it's part-way up the article, nestling between the end of the text and a navigation template. Simply press "End" and you can find the stub template.
I also have issue with the stub tags appearing under categories... That has no impact on how it appears on the article page. On the contrary, it does make a difference - it ensures that stub category appears last in the category list, which is surely the correct place for them as it is not one designed for navigation.
Grutness...wha? 23:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. My response is I'm no longer going to place stub tags on articles and someone else can decide where they go. Every new article gets scrutinized by someone anyway. 23skidoo 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where would I get a stub list?

Where would I get a list of all topics that are considered stubs? I'd like to help edit some. --Fishy Monster 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, do we have a job -- or a million or so -- for you! You could look in Cat:stubs, the sub-categories of Cat:stub categories, and so on. Or, for a list by topic, see WP:WSS/ST. Hope that helps. Alai 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

you could go to googlexD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalala45 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What would this stub be?

What would I put for the stub catagory on this page?

Bryse (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

much like a ticket stub, but BETTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.60.5 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do we need stub templates?

What is the purpose of having stub templates in short articles? I personally think they are useless and makes the articles look bad or funny, especially if there are more than one stub template. Are stub templates used in order to...

  1. inform the reader that the article is short?
  2. inform the reader that the article can be (and should be) improved?
  3. classify the article so that others can find it (and other stubs) more easily?

... or something else?

I find stub templates useless because...

  1. it is rather obvious that the article is short (if it really is short; there are too many examples of stub templates beeing left in already expanded articles)
  2. almost every article on wikipedia can be and should be improved (why point that out specifically for short articles?)
  3. classification can instead be made using category tags

I realize that stub templates have been used for a long time and it is not easy to change the way they are used. But I think that the use of stub templates is more of an editorial issue rather than a reader issue. Much the same as Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is dealt with on the talk pages only. So, wouldn't it be better if stub templates are located on the talk pages instead? It still makes classification of stub articles easy, without the need to clutter the articles with annoying templates. -- Kildor (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is largely explained on Wikipedia:Stub, but still... There are two purposes of stub templates, one of which you got right and another you almost got right but slightly missed. Stub templates are designed:
1) to classify articles so that others can find it (and other stubs) more easily (your reason 3). This could, as you say, be done with category tags, but any recategorisation of aticles which might be necessary later would take tens, if not hundreds, of times as much effort than simply repointing a template at a new category. This is also the reason stub templates are never subst'ed onto articles.
2) to encourage the reader to expand the article. This is similar to your reason 2, but not identical to it, since not all Wikipedia readers realise that they - even as anons - are able to expand articles. The added encouragement makes it more likely that stubs will be expanded.
With regards to making the articles look bad, simply being a stub makes an article look bad - there's nothing worse than an articleon a big subject that only has one sentence in it. Adding a template which is noticeable to something that is already fairly ugly simply makes it more likely that an editor will want to do something about it.
As to your other point, yes, stub templates are definitely for editors rather than readers - however, they are more like such tags as {{wikify}} and {{uncat}} than they are like Wikipedia:Requested moves, since they relate to work that can be done without consultation and by anyone with a basic knowledge of wikipedia editing. There are a large number of templates of this nature: {{copyedit}}, {{grammar}}, {{buzzword}}, {{sections}}, {{context}}, {{hoax}}, {{deadend}}... have a look at the list at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. Tags placed on talk pages generally are those where debate is prefeable prior to any work being done, and often require assistance from more proficient editors or admins. To use the example you give,, Wikipedia:Requested moves - as the name suggests - is for requests that the person placing the template doesn't want to deal with personally, either for reasons of necessary pre-move debate. It directly contrasts with the article page templates {{mergewith}} and {{mergeinto}} where debate seems unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stub labelling was removed from German Wikipedia in decembre 2005 and instead automated to save time and ressources. You can use Special:Preferences - Misc - Threshold for stub link formatting (bytes): (set to 500 or something). You can then see stubs via link color from other articles. To find short articles in a specific category (even multiple categories) you can use CatScan from Wikimedia Germany. There is also Special:Shortpages and DisplayShortPages on Wikimedia.org toolserver. --Matthias M. (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned here frequently in the past, length doesn't accurately reflect what is or isn't a stub. As anyone whose done much stub-sorting here will tell you, a lot of articles under 500 bytes in size are not stubs, and a lot of those considerably over that size are. Some stubs are actually incredibly long, since they contain one paragraph of text followed by multiple infoboxes or long lists. The problem can be seen by looking, as you suggest, at Special:Shortpages. The vast majority of the pages listed on the first page of that list are redirects, and therefore aren't stubs. Also, from what I've heard, the system used on De:Wiki has severe limitations which makes it considerably inferior to the manual work done here and on other Wikipedias. And yes, we do use CatScan and similar tools. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with stub templates. They're a lot less obtrusive than the ugly banners used to indicate articles that need more sources, or that an editor feels doesn't establish notability, etc. I'd rather see these also done stub-tag form at the bottom, creating a category where people who enjoy expanding and fixing up articles can easily find articles to work on. 23skidoo (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I have seen so far, the only reason to have stub templates located in the articles instead of talk pages is to encourage readers to expand the article. If so, do we know if it really works? And why do we encourage people to improve some articles (stubs) but not others? I believe it is rather obvious from the "Edit this page" tab that anyone can improve an article. Perhaps that part could be clearer, but that kind of message should not be located in the article text.
There seem to be a lot of work being done to sort and categorize all these stub templates. And I wonder if it is not better dealt with by different WikiProjects, that assess and rate articles within their scope. As of now, many articles are put in multiple stub categories. Take the Roma Tiburtina railway station as an example. It is located in Category:Europe rail stubs and Category:Italy stubs by stub templates. But also in Category:Stub-Class rail transport articles by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. These categories are clearly overlapping. Would not we better use project tagging only? -- Kildor (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In a perfect woprld, yes, it would. However, there aren't wikiprojects on every single subject. Since we don't, there are two alternatives if we want articles to be stubbed at all - either run two separate systems which complement each other (which would require a constantly shifting area covered by WP:WSS as new Wikiprojects come into being or become moribund), or run a comprehensive system through WP:WSS and accept any overlap as part of the process. Also, if an article is tagged as being rated by a specific wikiproject, then to the uninitiated editor it appears as if only those people who are part of that wikiproject can edit it. This is of course false, but even experienced editors will shy away from editing an article if they think it is part of a specific projects "territory". Some uninitiated editors don't even know what a talk page is, and certainly wouldn't look there for hints that they can expand the article. For this reason, we regard WP assessment templates as being for use by specific wikiprojects but stub templates to be for use across Wikipedia as a whole. As to whether they work, yes, the turnover of stubs in stub categories indicates that stubs do get expanded, even when they're not connected with a specific wikiproject. As to whether that is due to the presence of the stub template of not is impossible to tell without running a test - a test which would involve removing tons of templates then putting them back after a set period of time to check different editing rates. That is hardly a productive use of anyone's time, however. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:PROJDIR, there seem to be a project for most subjects on Wikipedia! But an alternative approach is to do stub tagging at talk pages, and remove the stub tags as soon as an article has been assigned to a project. And don't you think that the Edit this page tab is good enough hint to anyone that the article can be expanded and improved? Still, if there is a concern that readers might feel that they cannot or should not improve a page, it should be a concern for all wikipedia articles, and not only for stub articles. -- Kildor (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh - oookay. let's go through those points one at a time.
  • Take a look at WP:PROJDIR, there seem to be a project for most subjects on Wikipedia!
  • Seems to be, but most certainly is not. There are huge gaps with no project, and other areas where several projects overlap.
  • But an alternative approach is to do stub tagging at talk pages...
  • As I pointed out, newbie editors often don't even know what a talk page is, and haing stub tags on talk pages doesn't provide the same incentive for editing.
  • ...and remove the stub tags as soon as an article has been assigned to a project.
  • And what happens if the project goes defunct (as about 30% of WikiProjects do)? Sudden re-tagging of everything? And what of the editors who would like to edit an article but feel that it is "owned" by a project and therefore they can't or shouldn't edit it? And what also of cases where an article is covered by more than one project? Once one project has a talk page tag on it, and it is no longer stubbed, it becomes harder for other projects to find to work on. Also, different projects might have different standards for what they consider a stub. the easiest way to ceate and overall standard is to have an overall stubbing scheme, exactly as we currently have..
  • And don't you think that the Edit this page tab is good enough hint to anyone that the article can be expanded and improved?
  • Doesn't seem to be for many articles. It also doesn't indicate the size of an article, or sort it into a category where a specific type of editor will be able to find it easily.
  • Still, if there is a concern that readers might feel that they cannot or should not improve a page, it should be a concern for all wikipedia articles, and not only for stub articles.
  • It is most definitely a concern, which is why we have such an array of different templates relating to things that need doing on an article - {{wikify}}, {{context}}, {{expand}}, {{orphan}}, {{deadend}}, {{uncat}}, {{listdev}}, {{fact}}, {{tone}}... all of which, you will note, go on the article page, not the talk page. They go there so as to appear to a reader first and where any reader would see them, rather than appearing on a talk page where they might appear to be 'overridden" by a project assessment box. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What about the 80% (or whatever number) articles that do not have a tag? Should all articles be tagged, so people would know that they can improve it? I believe that most cleanup tags should go to talk pages. And stub tags are among the least helpful, since their message is quite superfluous. There is really no need to inform people that a one-line article is a stub... -- Kildor (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
These seems to be the same questions you've asked before and I've answered before, but I'll try again. No, all articles should not be tagged - only those which have specific things wrong with them which need work. These things, as explained above, include being unwikified, ungrammatical, having factual errors... or being so short that they do not constitute more than a very cursory article. Most articles (the 80% you mention, which is actually closer to 60%) don't have specific things wrong with them - they can still do with a nudge here or there, but there are no wholesale problems with them that need specific work. Even then, specific requests for expansion may be put on articles. Cleanup tags, as explained above, go on article pages rather than talk pages so that they can be easily seen by readers. They also go there, as explained above, to avoid being considered in any way connected to Wikiproject templates, which may imply ownership of the articles in some way. Most importantly of all, they are on the article pages so that they can be more easily added an removed - especially the latter after any improvements have been done. The only cleanup templates which go on talk pages, as explained above, are those where there is a request for intervention by other more experienced editors or administrators. Stub tags are among the most helpful of cleanup templates, as they perform an extra purpose, as explained above: they not only flag an article as being significantly incomplete to the point of only marginally being considered as a 'real" article, but also at the same time classify the article according to subject matter so that specific editors are able to find in more easily. This is a major advantage over all other cleanup templates - there aren't specific template for {{geo-wikify}} or {{bio-fact}}, for example. As to There is really no need to inform people that a one-line article is a stub, that is true, but, as explained above, it is very important to flag an article as a stub and to make sure that it goes into a specific cleanup category where it can be found readily. As explained above, there are a large number of editors who specifically look for undersized articles on their specific subjects that require work, and many of these editors do so outside WikiProjects. Stub templates, as explained above, provide the means for them to find articles to expand - a means which would not be available in any other way. Please, before you ask again, read the answers I have given, since it gets a little tedious having to repeat virtually the same answers to virtually the same questions over and over again. Grutness...wha? 11:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but my last message contained no questions that had been asked before. Again, my proposal is to move stub tags to talk pages (and/or replace with project tags). So when I say that stub tags are useless, I do not refer to the categorizing that comes with stub tagging (since that is still provided even if the tags goes on the talk pages). They are useless since their message is simply that the article is too short, which is quite obvious in most instances. So the only argument to keep them in the article text (rather than move them to the talk page) is that the tags encourage people to expand the article. And in many articles, that message is repeated two or three times! As I have said before, that message is provided by the website framework (edit this page), and could perhaps be clearer. But that is an issue for this website, and not an issue for the individual articles. Therefore, I do not see the reason to keep the stub tags in the article space.
Your last posting assumed the question you originally posed - So, wouldn't it be better if stub templates are located on the talk pages instead?, as does your reply to my response. I'm not sure how many tuimes you need it explained why stub templates should never go on talk pages - but if you'd like to re-read my response you will see that it has been answered. For your benefit, though, I shall explain it all over again. Cleanup tags, as explained above, go on article pages rather than talk pages so that they can be easily seen by readers. They also go there, as explained above, to avoid being considered in any way connected to Wikiproject templates, which may imply ownership of the articles in some way. Most importantly of all, they are on the article pages so that they can be more easily added an removed - especially the latter after any improvements have been done. The only cleanup templates which go on talk pages, as explained above, are those where there is a request for intervention by other more experienced editors or administrators.
Your further comment "There is really no need to inform people that a one-line article is a stub" also harks back to your original comment it is rather obvious that the article is short (if it really is short, yet fails to acknowledge or make any attempt to deal with the reasons goiven for why they are used - and sepecifically why they are used on the article page rather than the talk page. That is also explained yet again in my reply to your previous post. Again, I ask you not to simply repeat the same arguments with no apparent thought given to the explanations or rebuttals which havce already been given to them. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
With due respect, but I am not the only person reapeating arguments! But I will respond to your three reasons mentioned above:
  • Cleanup tags, as explained above, go on article pages rather than talk pages so that they can be easily seen by readers. The stub tags do not need to be seen by readers. Because their message is either obvious (the article needs expanding) or already told (you can edit this page).
  • ...to avoid being considered in any way connected to Wikiproject templates, which may imply ownership of the articles in some way. First of all, I do not share your fear about the project tags. The stub message (you can help) would still be there. And if that does not do the trick, we should modify the project tags to be more inviting for everyone to participate.
  • Most importantly of all, they are on the article pages so that they can be more easily added an removed - especially the latter after any improvements have been done. Well, if that is the most important reason, you might be right after all. It is more simple to remove the stub tag at the same time you expand the article. But I do not think that is good enough reason to keep them in article space. -- Kildor (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Equally with due respect, your first line really proves my point. WI have been repeating the same responses becaused the points raised are virtually identical each time. If the same queries are made , it's no surprise of the answers to them remain the same - they're not likely to change between askings.
As has been shown frequently, new editors often don't realise that anyone can edit an article, even with the motto of Wikipedia being what it is and the edit tag at the top of the page. Any little extra prompting helps. And WikiProject talk page templates do have a very strong negative effect on editing by people not part of the wikiprojects, so keeping stub templates separate from them is important. I'd be all in favour of modifying the WP talk-page templates. Unless, however, you can get all the disparate wikiprojects to agree to such a move, which seems extremely unlikely, I don't see it happening.
Let me pose you a question, in the hope of breaking this continual head-butting. Given that (a) stub templates are a form of cleanup tag, (b) all non-admin intervention cleanup tags are placed on the article itself, and (c) it is more useful for editors to be able to remove cleanup tags if they are on the article rather than the talk page, why would anyone want stub tags to be on the talk page? I can't see it being an aesthetics thing - if an article is a stub it is already ugly, and the addition of a cleanup template isn't going to change that. So what is the reason? Grutness...wha? 23:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is aesthetical. The stub tags are ugly, especially when they come in groups of two, three, and sometimes even more. The icons draw attention from the article text. It looks stupid when the same message is repeated two or three times, and the message provides no new information. It is like the {{future}} tag at the top of the 2058 article; it does not say anything that the reader doesn't already know. Furthermore, Wikipedia is well-organized and divided into article pages and talk pages. An article page is intended for information on a specific topic. And a talk page is intended for information and discussion about the corresponding article. The stub message refers to the article rather than the topic, and should therefore be located at the talk page.
A stub article is not ugly in itself. Many stubs are useful articles, that are well-written, well-formatted and provide reliable sources. Stubs are not ugly, though it would look better to have more comprehensive information on the subject. Nevertheless, stub tags and other maintenance tags do make articles look worse. These are like the "under construction" tags that appeared on almost every website in the early years of the World Wide Web. Some pages may look better than others, but there is no need to spoil the neat and elegant layout that the Wikipedia framework provides. Wikipedia will always be under construction!
If the stub tags really have to be on the articles, I would be happier if we could have them without icons (or at least with a standardized icon that is same for all stub tags), and located in a neat blue box, like the box that contains the categories. And make sure that the stub message only appears once in the same article. --Kildor (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You and I seem to differ on whether a stub article is ugly. I'd say that any stub article is automatically ugly, even a well-written one. As you point out - a stub template is as ugly as other article templates like {{future}}. They are far less ugly than most cleanup templates, simply because thy do not have some whacking great box around them drawing more attention to them. A "neat blue box" would make the templates look far uglier, draw far more attention to them, and detract even further from the articles. The whole intention of stub templates is to be unobtrusive, after all. You're right about the icons - wp:wss tried removing the icons about a year ago. They went back on just as quickly, as editors took it into their minds to put them back. Personally, I don't see any need for icons either, but it seems that more editors want them than don't (try removing some icons - see how long it takes them to be put back!). Edtors like them and think they improve the look of stub templates. Wikipedia has many many conflicting opinions. Grutness...wha? 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Below is an example; the article CINOD. The article is well-written and well-refenced. And it is tagged with two stub tags that comes with two ugly icons and a repeated message. Why can't we have this article neat and clean? As said below, there is more to tell about this drug, and we certainly want people to contribute. But that message can be delivered without cluttering the article with annoying tags. -- Kildor (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And if you read my response to Josta59 below, you'll see why it is clearly still a stub. Once those matters have been addressed, then it will no longer be a stub, and the templates can be removed. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, didn't appreciate seeing the little "stub" announcement on my polished article on CINODs. It's short because it's a new drug class, and it doesn't need a bunch of extraneous information that can be gathered from the referenced material. I find it slightly insulting. josta59 28 February 2008

So, you're saying that the article is complete, that nothing new is likely to be found out about the subject, and that there's information which can be gained from the references that isn't in the article at present? That sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Sure, it looks like a fine article, but it is short enough to warrant a stub template, especially since, as a new drug class, it's likely more information on it will be forthcoming pretty soon. More can be added, surely - the article doesn't mention the method of administration, nor whether the fusion with NO produces a more efficacious result than the use of NSAIDs and NO separately, and any problems that might be encountered with the latter method. What are the several CINODs that are currently being tested? Which NSAIDs are they originally based on - salicylates? Fenamic acids? Propanoic-phenolic acids? Are there any known drug interactions? Why doesn't the article say? Grutness...wha? 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...point taken. :) josta59 29 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That may have been the most use my MSc in psychology has been put to since leaving university ;) Grutness...wha? 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Would that be the overwhelming-with-inadequacies-and-demonstration-of-knowledge method? ;)--Josta59 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Something like that ;) Grutness...wha? 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Creating stub types

At the moment, the first paragraph of Creating stub types reads:

In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category, although "upmerged" templates are also occasionally created which feed into more general stub categories.

I think we should change this to remove the part after the comma; I don't think it's obvious to an inexperienced Wikipedian what that means, and so I think it makes the opening more complicated than it needs to be.

"Upmerging" is explained in New stub templates, a couple of paragraphs down, so a reader will still get the information. I just don't think it's important enough to need to be in the first sentence.

When I edited that part of the page, I was trying to make it more clear and understandable to someone who might not have a great understanding of templates, categories, and other concepts specific to (or needing knowledge of) Wikipedia. I think the plainer we can get the message across, the better :)

Thanks very much, and well done on all your work! Drum guy (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I understand what yyou mean, but I do think it's a bit of an oversimplification not to mention upmerging there, since it's become a very common way (possibly the usual way) of creating stub types in recent months. Perhaps a solution might be to put an internal link to Wikipedia:Glossary#Upmerge on that word. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden categories discussion

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories concerning what kinds of categories should be hidden (using the new HIDDENCAT magic word). For the moment it is proposed that hiding be applied to all categories which classify the article rather than the article subject (i.e. maintenance cats, stub cats, "Spoken articles" etc.) Please weigh in. --Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] how big can a stub be?

At what point is a stub no longer a stub? Is there a simple mathematic solution? Like once it hits 7,500 bytes? I am sure this has been discussed. Kingturtle (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed before, though there's never really been any consensus. It's certainly not a strictly mathematical thing - it's more a fairly arbitrary 'feel"; some artuicles marked as stubs and some not marked as stubs look quite similar, since the borderline is pretty fuzzy. Stub sorters tend to take several things into consideration which make a purely mathematiucal approach impossible: does the article contain just one paragraph and then a list of examples, for instance? If it does, then the body of the article can really be considered to be just the paragraph, and the article is marked as a stub - even if the list is quite long. Similarly, articles with just a small amount of text and a lot of infoboxes is still likely to be a stub. The subject matter is important, too - an article like Croughton, Northamptonshire says all that you really need to say about the village, so it isn't a stub; an article of the same length on New York, though, would definitely be a stub. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have more info? --Camaeron (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look through the archives of this page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting - I'm sure you'll find some of the previous discussions on this there. Grutness...wha? 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a more careful way to talk about "plagiarism"

Just a small comment about the statement that "directly copying other sources is plagiarism". I think it should say something more like "directly copying from other sources without proper attribution is plagiarism". However, I thought it might be better to get some comments here first before making that change. (unlike, a small tweak that I made today in the same section, -- the section "Ideal stub article" -- where I was more confident it was right. It was just a change to a hyper link.) Any comments? Would this be a good change? Thanks, Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) tweaked slightly 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Even with proper attribution, direct copying is still plagiarism. The only way to avoid plagiarism is to attribute and reword. There are numerous examples of things that have been speedily deleted as copyvios where they've been copied directly from a webpage and simply added the website address as an attribution. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image sizes: let's standardise

Can we pick a maximum image size, and stick with it? I've been using 40x30px on the many, many stub templates I've had cause to edit for this or some other initial reason, but there's no "official" guidance on this, beyond the word "small". I'd rather we standardised on some other size than we fail to standardise at all, however. I think that using an ad hoc variety of sizes looks unnecessarily scrappy on pages where there's multi-stubbing, and we absolutely do not want to get into the size equivalent of "loudness wars". Alai (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I hinted in the proposal discussion for netball-stub, some icons are better in other than "landscape format". I think if we make it clear that the larger dimension is 40px, then it will standardise to a large extent. I've certainly noobjection to icons being 40x20, 40x40 or 30x40 if those are easier to handle than 40x30. Consider the flags used for national icons, for instance. You can't have a 40x30 icon for most of those without altering the official dimensions of the flags (the Union Jack would have to be 40x20, and Nepal's flag would have to be 30x40, to start with). And then there's the problem with icons using maps - how do you turn a map of Chile into a 40x30 icon? If we stipulate a maximum for the longer dimension, but allow leeway for the other dimension, then the "loudness" problem will disappear to a large extent, and it'll still get rid of things like the {{California Desert-geo-stub}} icon. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest we stick with "landscape" dimensions, and re-crop images to suit, if that shrinks them too much to be clear. The alternative would still look significantly jumbled, and 40x40 is for my money certainly too big. Clarity is not really an issue with flags, which should obviously retain their original ratios. It's certainly not necessary to "turn images into" 40x30: I'm suggesting that as bounds, not a "stretch to fit" size. Alai (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly doesn't look a jumble if there is a maximum dimension given, and some images simply look wrong in landscape format. I still say that as long as the maximum dimension's size is specified, that in itself is enough to standardise images. If you stick with 40x30 as maxima, then either you have to stretch icons to fit both maxima, or some icons are clearly going to be far smaller than others, and the result will be far more of a jumble. Any vertically oriented icons would be significantly smaller than landscape-format ones, since they would only be allowed to fall within the 30 pixel height maximum. Which would mean far more variation in icon size than simply specifying a size for whichever is the maximum dimension. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A mixture of 40x30, 30x40 and 40x40 on a page is, IMO, precisely a "jumble". It'd be worse than the status quo, if it caused a further proliferation of the latter two, and the jumbliness of said status quo is precisely what I'm here to argue against. It also introduces a perverse incentive to re-crop images to 40x40. I'm absolutely not advocating stretching images to fit 40x30. That's not the most straightforward thing to do, and nor is there any point to it. Some vertically-oriented images will indeed look a little cramped at 40x30, certainly. If excessively so, I strongly suggest either recropping, or simply using a different image. (In the case of Chile, use of the flag instead of, or as well as, the map spring to mind) That vertically-oriented, size-constrained images end up smaller is much less of an issue, I think, because it doesn't create radical misalignment of text, or a large visual intrusion, in the way "too big" images do. Certainly no worse than the fair numerous templates with no image.
Perhaps this is yet another issue we'll have to wait until there's an odd number of people with strong views on the matter. Or at any rate, more than two. Alai (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add standard rules to WP:STUB

I would like to add the following to the bottom of "Basic information", right above "1.1 Ideal stub article"

Like all articles, stubs must conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly those governing content and style.

Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems a little redundant. It's not feasible or desirable to have every policy or guideline to cross-reference every other such, however orthogonal, and there certainly seems to be near-complete orthogonality going on here. If anything, we could start to prune out, or refactor elsewhere, a good deal of the existing material. Alai (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB putting stubs below cats

I'm getting frequently annoyed witnessing AWB users making pointless edits by moving stub templates below categories. See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#AWB_reverting_order_of_stubs_and_cats. Anyway, articles are rendered in such a way that the message "This article is a stub" appear above the categories. Please change this "policy" to the reflect this fact. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that placing the stub templates below the categories is deliberate, since browsing categories then are placed before stub categories in the list of categories, as is only right and dnatural, and as has been requested by many editors over the last few years. The position of the stub message is irrelevant. You might as well say "why are coordinate templates placed alongside the references of an article when the coordinates themselves appear at the top of the page?" - in fact, you'd have more reasons to ask that, since the positioning of the stub templates actually serve the positive purpose of setting the order for the categories to appear. Stubs go where they do for good reason, and should continue to do so for exactly the same reason. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. That said, it would be pushing the AWB rules a little to make an edit that just fixes this order. Most stubs have at least something else wrong with them anyway. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It has been requested that no stub categories are visible at all to the reader, as these are only for internal Wikipedia maintenance purposes, and not about the article's subject. The order of categories is highly arbitrary anyway. As with the fixed position of the coordinates, the stub message always appears above the categories, and I don't expect to have the stub template source code hidden below the categories. In most cases, stub templates were placed by the user who started the article, in order to draw attention to the fact that it needs to be expanded, verified, improved, copy-edited. Those who encounter a stub category in a prominent place should improve the article's content, just pushing the stub to the rear does not improve the article at all, and ignores the reason why it was declared a stub in the first place. Its purpose is to expand and improve an article beyond stub status, rather than its position triggering edit wars between bots and mere humans. Thus, edits with that semi-automatic AWB tool just to re-shuffle the order like this annoy me - and not only me [1] as the AWB user was warned. He states on his user page GOAL : 1,000,000 edits as well as the trust and respect of the Wikipedia community. Also to be an admin by the time I'm entering high school.
Based on this, I suggest that the first section in Wikipedia:Stub#Categorizing_stubs is altered to
After writing a short article, or finding an unmarked stub, you should insert a stub template. By convention this is placed after the External links section and two blank lines, and above any navigation templates, and the category tags. The stub category will appear first to draw attention to the fact that the article is in need of improvement.
Hope this helps. BTW, there are also users who put stub templates into article sections they consider to short. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
well, it certainly helps to clarify that you may not fully understand the rationale behind stub templates. They are not there to indicate that the article needs to be "expanded, verified, improved, copy-edited" - they are for sorting articles that are tiny and require significant extension only by subject. Other templates perform the other functions you mention, and articles requiring them alone should not be given stub templates. You also seem to miss the dichotomy of Wikipedia's roles - it has to primarily cater for readers while simultaneously allowing editors to work. As such, templates and categories relating to readership have precedence within an article. They should never, ever be placed above navigation templates, as navigation templates are for the benefit of readers, whereas stub templates are for the benefit of editors. Adding a stub template in the middle of an article (which it would be if it were before the navigation templates) defeats that purpose. Similarly, user-specific categories should be placed before editor-specific categories, and as such the stub category needs to go after the category tags in order for this to happen. As such, the correct place for stub templates is below both the navigation templates and category links. It could possibly be noted as well that - though the guidelines of WP:ITANNOYSME relate primarily to deletion process pages,m they can apply equally well to policy and guidelines which have been decided after long discussion and "work on the ground" from people who actually regularly use the templates in question - as is the case here.
As for people using stub templates for sections of articles, that is true, but when stub sorters find such erroneous placements they usually ask those editors to use the correct {{sect-expand}} template instead.
The question of whether this should be done by AWB is another matter (as is the discussion about hiding stub categories) - stub-sorters reposition templates by hand as a matter of course during their sorting, though I see no problem with it being done by AWB if it is part of a larger program (such as changing the name of a stub template). Doing this alone using AWB is, however, likely a misuse of that tool.
BTW, I would suggest that - as indicated at the top of this page - you take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, since it's likely that many more of the people who work with stubs watch that page than this one. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Change the link "expanding it" from [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it] to a short, animated tutorial like on the French wikipedia, see the template at the top of fr:Fuck for Forest or fr:Banque cantonale du Valais. "ébauche" means "draft" which is equivalent to "stub"? "Comment" in French, means "How", so instead of a link to "expanding it" (edit this page) make a link to "how" with a short tutorial, like the one at fr:Aide:Comment modifier une page (english translation). Notice the emphasis on including an edit summary. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, but that takes a lot of space and really dominates the article! I'm amazed that you'd want something that big and dominating at the top of an article. Looks like a really poor example of a stub message to me... It's also worth noting that a lot of older browsers (still undoubtedly used by some Wikipedians) have a great deal of difficulty with animated images, as can people on dial-up. I'd be against any such changes. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm not suggesting changing the location or size of the template, just make the link go to a tutorial on editing instead of going to the edit tab. If you don't like the animation you don't have to use it, but I like it. Does the english wikipedia even have a similar tutorial on editing? 199.125.109.34 (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah - I misunderstood you, sorry. Yes, there is such a page (Wikipedia:Writing better articles) - that does make some sense, since there's always an edit link at the top of the page anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That page is way, way, way too long for this purpose. We need one like on the French Wikipedia. 199.125.109.120 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a shorter one. Use this link: "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." 199.125.109.120 (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My (bad) translation of the message in the French stub is: "This article is a pornography, environment and Internet stub. You can share your knowledge by improving it (How?)". My preference for what we might link to if we don't link to the edit tab would be either the WP:Tutorial or one of the editor assistance pages; there's also a chat room available for new editors. But people can find these things if they're looking for them; the reason that pointing people to the edit tab works, more or less, is that the people who might correct someone are generally very friendly about it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the first part of course was just from the category that the stub was in. You can summarize the words "You can share your knowledge" by saying "you can help". "How" is more useful than "edit". The advantage of the french link is that is that it goes to a one page tutorial. If we could summarize wp:tutorial in one page that would be the best link. Barring that, a link to wp:Tutorial would be a big improvement to a link to "edit this page". It would be good to update the intro at the tutorial to let people know why they were sent there. See I couldn't care less about "becoming a Wikipedian" ("Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia to which you can contribute. This tutorial will help you become a Wikipedian."), but I do want to know how I can expand a stub article, and just taking me directly to the edit link is not very helpful. 199.125.109.122 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] id="stub"

Because the box standard for stub templates is apparently to wrap them inside a <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">, XHTML errors are generated by pages containing multiple stub templates, as all id attributes on a page should be unique. This concern was raised at the village pump and I offered two possible solutions, so I invite everyone interested in stub template formats to comment here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)