Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
Talk archives for Wikipedia:Stub (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 8 >>

Contents

stubbers and stub-sorters

There may be people who are not interested in stub sorting and would only perform generic stubbing using only the tag, {{stub}}. Because there are so many stubs to choose from, it can be a barrier to complete the whole stubbing process. Therefore, it is adequate that one can just perform only one step of generic stubbing with its purpose of bringing attention to the newly discovered stub article. Thus there are two roles, stubbers and stub-sorters, whom work together to efficiently meet Wikipedia's stubbing goals. Comments? -- Zondor 2 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Somewhat radical suggestion about stub templates

I just got done unloading some word at Wikipedia_talk:Template_standardisation and that got me to thinking ... I am considering whether the categorisation of a stub-article via affixing a specific stub type need be reflected on the article page as it currently is. The current anatomy of a stub-template message looks like

(optional image) (topic message) (entreaty to expand the article)

A large part of the template standardisation discussion revolves around making template messages unobtrusive but noticable and clearly distinguishing them from the article content. There is a suggestion to have all templates in boxes with certain characteristics across all Wikipedia. I don't think that would fly in fully open discussion, but at present the group involved is implementing a standard across templates without discussion or notice on the talk pages, the notion being that they'll deal with it when someone complains or reverts.

In order to head off this wave without making a federal case of it (blowing it out of proportion), we might take the initiative in doing some stub-type-wide changes ourself. Here is my proposal:

  1. the stub-template message be contracted down to a combination of the old "stub" image and a topic-specific image - no text except that might appear as part of the image
  2. the stub-template be placed at the top, to the far left of the page
  3. markup the stub-template image to go to the topical stub category
  4. the stub-type category be listed in the category listing, preferably last, but would be added as part of the template addition as it now is
  5. all existing stub categories and stub type processes be kept the same

The point of all this is doing away with the perceived user requirement that the topic of the stub-template be included in the template message. In point of fact, the topic is related redundantly and in some cases confusingly by appearing 3 times ... as part of the stub-template title, as the name of the stub-type category, and in the text of the stub-template message. Also, the help-request in the stub template message is redundant with the "edit this page". All articles can use help in some way; the stub template just emphasizes that maybe this article needs more help than others in the same topic area.

This is a rather radical suggestion and I'm not aggresively supportive of it, but I do think that considering it in the light of how to improve the stub-associated experience for readers and contributers (not in this case for stubbers .. though all 3 can be instantiated in one person).

Thanks for listening. Courtland July 4, 2005 14:37 (UTC)

If I understood what you mean, you are proposing that the template would be converted to something similar to what the Wikiportal template is, right? A simple box with an image defining that it is a stub (the old "puzzle piece" image) and an indicator of what stub category it belongs to, floating at the upper-left corner of the article.
I do find the idea to be interesting, but I fear that the scope of the changes might result in a sizable amount of article-breaking. Nevertheless, it could be implemented, but it would probably be best if a mockup version of the template was made and put somewhere on the Wikipedia namespace, so that all parties interested could evaluate and discuss it. --Sn0wflake 4 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Another suggestion about stub definitions

There has been much discussion about what constitutes a stub.

Could we consider adding to the "identifying a stub" section something like:

It is sometimes unclear to the reader why an article has been given the label of "stub". When putting on a stub-template consider starting a discussion thread on the article's talk page that indicates what you, as the person who labelled the article as a stub or who altered the stub-type, believe is missing from the article. This provides a further assistance to potential contributors by not only highlighting that the article needs expansion, but also what is needed.

This is far too wordy, but something along these lines of sentiment might be useful to add somewhere, either here or in one of the pages related to the WP:WSS.

Courtland 15:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

This might be an useful guideline for, say, "stubbers", who seem to think that they are making a great contribution to the Wikipedia by sending every damn article which has a slight flaw to Category:Stubs by means of placing a generic stub tag on them. As of late, it's becoming very hard to understand why certain articles are being tagged as a stub. Unwikified articles shouldn't be sent to the stub cat, in the same way copyvios should not, in the same way articles with no cateogry should not. So I would love an explanation in these cases. But on a general basis, this does not serve much purpose. Pretty much all of the time, it is fairly clear what a stub lacks. --Sn0wflake 17:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

at what point is a stub no longer a stub?

At what point is a stub entry no longer a stub but an actual article? I've been working on the Sam Seder article, and don't feel it's finished, but it's certainly more fleshed out then when I came across it. I even added his filmography, and figured out how to include his picture. However, I've pretty much exhausted my research for the time being. I'm sure others can later improve upon what I've done.

I don't know if it's okay for me to remove the bio-stub reference that was included on the page when I found it, or if I'm supposed to let other people do that? Maybe y'all vote.. or something..? Or can I just remove it? Thanks ahead of time for any responses. ZachsMind 02:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well the rule of thumb on WP:STUB is "10 fairly short sentances or three paragraphs" but it warns that that is jsut a rule of thumb. In genral a stub is, IMO, an article so short as to be obviously lacking key info needed to cover the subject, so short that people must be exorted to expand it, and the reader cautioned not to rely on it to include adequate coverage. An article doesn't need to be so tagged can just have the stub tag removed -- no vote or approval is needed. I have done some stubsorting recently, mostly in book-stub, and found several articles that didn't look like stubs to me. I checked the history to see the state of the article when the stub tag was applied. if here had been significant expansion, and the article didn't feel like a stub to me, I removed the tag. This is just my view, nothing official, of course. DES 04:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The article you mention - Sam Seder - is no longer a stub, as it goes beyond defining the subject and giving general information about it. It also goes beyond "3 to 10 short sentences", which is a metric which, despite not absolute, is generally agreed upon by the members of the WP:WSS. Removing the stub tag is the best action to take, I believe. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 05:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Good. I'll remove the stub tag. Thanks for the input. =) -- ZachsMind 11:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I came to the Stub article with the same question, and went to this talk to ask it if nobody else had. I suggest putting some mention of this in the main article. It's one thing to know what a stub is; it's another to know when/how to remove the stub tag.  :) --DragonHawk 03:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, in the "Identifing a stub" section. DES (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I still had trouble finding it -- maybe a subheading that says 'Protocol for Removing a Stub'?Kit 23:17:38, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
Done. See the new section "No longer a stub?" DES (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I note that my previous text, in the "Identifing a stub" section, was removed without discussion by Sn0wflake in this edit with an edit summary saying that consensus should be reached first. I was under the impression that there is consensus for the principle that when an article has been developed beyond the stub level, any editor may remove the stub tag. Is this not the case? DES (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Until recently, a sentence covering that had been on the article, but it was removed at some point for no apparent reason. --Sn0wflake 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think converting the small separate section I had inserted on this into a single sentence in the middle of a paragrpah that otherwise talks about the naming conventions for stub tags makes it easier to find, and from the above comments some users found this info hard to find in the past. I have moved this to what seems to me a more logical place (under identifing rather than categorising) and made it a short 2-sentence paragraphs, but not a sepaeate section. I would apprieciate the views of an editor other than Sn0wflake on the merits of this placement, and of the longer version which I wrote up the other day, and Sn0wflake converted to a single sentence. DES (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Since you also brought this up at "Alternate stub standard", I would ask that this discussion was resumed there for a matter of organisation. --Sn0wflake 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
To my way of thinking these are two quite separate issues, and I would prefer to keep them separate. Also, I think you misinterpreted my comment below -- I did not intend to refer to this in the "Alternate stub standard" thread. DES (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
-Sn0wflake wrote (in a section below): "Can you please read that paragraph once more and see that the first three sentences say exactly the same thing?" --Sn0wflake 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC) They are somewhat redundant, and perhaps needed improvement. they were intended to say 1) when an article is no longer a stub, the stub tag should be removed. 2) An editor who has just expanded a stub may remove the tag. 3) an editor who discovefrs a former stub still tagged may also remove the tag. This was written to empahsize the point, and in light of the comments by ZachsMind, DragonHawk, and Kit in this section, and of other users elsewhere, that they felt the guideline did not help editors unsure when it was permissable and expected to remove a stub tag. in light of this I thought a full section was desireable. At the least I think a separate short paragraph, not a sentence in the middle of a paragraph on a different subject, is needed. Does anyone else have an opnion? DES (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Stub position

Aren't stub templates supposed to be put right after the article text, but before the See also and External links? I made that change but it was reverted. - Omegatron 00:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

That is the usual procedure, yes. However, due to varying opinions on the issue, we left this open to interpretation. I personally think that is is not the best procedure. Sorry, I had misread your message. I believe that the stub tag should come just before the Category links and inwikis, in order to avoid clutter, since stubs are supposed to be unobstrusive metadata. But again, it's open to interpretation. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The discussion can be found here. Personally, I'm in favour of the "right at the bottom, before the cats and interwiki links" approach. But unless consensus is reached on a particular approach, it's probably best to leave it open to interpretation. --TheParanoidOne 00:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Options are fine, but new users get confused if they don't have more specific information. I placed an explanation of the usual placement in the "Categorizing stubs" section. --Blainster 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One advantage of placing stub templates after category tags is that the stub categories will then appear after the substantive categories in the rendered page. Pissant 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

minimum stub size

User:Loganberry recently added text to the page that says that a one sentance stub is acceptable, at least in the view of some users. I know that some people do think this but is there still a consensus on something like the 3 sentence minimum for a "good" stub? DES (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, the only "good" stub is a "dead" stub [|:). Beyond that, though, and avoiding the one sentence can be as long as a paragraph problem, I think that if a person can't write 100 words, then that person is just making a post-it-note contribution. For instance, right about HERE is 50 words. I would contend that a stub should contain more information than typically found on a post-it-note. Courtland 03:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Which is true: it is acceptable in the view of some users. As for my own view, I don't think that a one-sentence stub is a desirable thing, but nor do I think a short stub is necessarily worse than nothing. If person A writes a "Post-it note contribution" and then person B comes across it (maybe via "Random article") and expands it a bit, and then this process gradually continues, then Wikipedia is working as it should; whereas a non-existent article would not turn up in the Random search in the first place. I think an article saying something like "Exampleton is a town in Worcestershire, England. At the 2001 census it had a population of around 12,000." is far from perfect, but better than having nothing at all. Loganberry (Talk) 03:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
You've at least provided enough info for disambiguation and establishing notability. I've found some articles that looked more like "Exampleton is in England." or "Exampleton is a town." There's no point having the stub if it isn't long enough to identify and establish notability of the intended subject. It should also be in the right category(ies), as people watch their favourite categories for new articles appearing in them. --Scott Davis Talk 10:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"Exampleton is a town" does establish notability. One sentence is fine as a start. Carina22 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Stub club?

We could really use a stub club because there are so many stubs and actually I find them useful because they're short enough to read quickly you can learn alot from stubs. Maybe we could start one on yahoo groups because they probably won't let us have one at wikipedia.com or we could use google groups because that may be better they have better software. If you want to start a stub club let me know thanks.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting more or less is the stub club here. Drop by. DES (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Alternate stub standard

I just added (or rather re-added) a paragraph to the "Identifing a stub" section thqt starts with "Another standard". I think this is a useful way to make the "debth of coverage" notion of a stub (as opposed to the "length" notion expressed in the 3-10 sentances rule of thumb) clear. I had added this paragraph soem time ago, and it was removed without discussion. If anyone thinks this is improper, please discuss the matter here. DES (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I will try to be objective here. First, we don't need a standard which is based on what you believe should be the standard. This is a guideline article built through consensus. Your paragraph was removed without discussion? Maybe because it was added without discussion? Are you sure all agree with your version of the standard? Second, the wording is not very good. How much is "little or nothing"? What is a "knowledgeble user"? How long does one take to make "significant research", ten minutes? Articles have varying degrees of information avaliablity. Not finding meaningful content in 10 minutes may mean nothing. Please, don't try to push what you think into the guideline. I am reverting it out. --Sn0wflake 21:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I would note this is not simply soemthing i invented -- It was an attempt to distill comment I had seen made here, on the stubsorting page, and I think on the pump. I was under the strong impression that, in a general way, what I was expressing was already the consensus, it had just never been properly codified and written up. So I was bold and added it to the guideline page. Note that it was phrased as a rough rule of thumb, not as mandatory policy. If the wording needs improvement let's improve it rather than just delete it. But since you obviosuly object, I'll put the text here and ask for suggestions and views, and see if there is a consensus for something along these lines, or if one will develop. okay? DES (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I also object to your labeling the removal of a paragraph of text, after i gave my reasons for inserting it here, as a minor edit. DES (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the alternative definition: You may do whatever you find to be of the project's best interest. I will not object to the discussion of an alternative definition in case people actually find it to be of need. Regarding the removal of the paragraph: Can you please read that paragraph once more and see that the first three sentences say exactly the same thing? --Sn0wflake 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I was referring here to to the removal of the "alternative definition" paragraph. I have responded to your comments on the "when to remove the stub tag" paragraph above. DES (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed "depth of coverage" standard

I think that most editors here agree that a mere mechanical counting of words, sentances, or paragraphs does not suffice to identify a stub. A topic completeluy covered in eight sentances is not a stub, and an article with twenty sentances but that barely is a skeleton coverage of its subject is clearly a stub. (For example, can you imagine the article on Freedom of speech reduced to twenty sentances not being a stub?) of course there is a wide gap between stub and featured article, indeeed most articles exist in that gap.

I attempted to capture a rough rule of thumb for this concept of what makes a stub. Sn0wflake objected that I had no consenssu and that what I wrote was poorly written. So I am asking for coments on the merits of this idea, and how to improve my expression of it. I am hoping to achieve consensus on a revised version of this text, which would then go onto the project page. DES (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

inital draft of proposed text: Another way to define a stub is that an article so incomplete that a user who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or 10 minutes in a reference library is quite probably a stub. One that can only be improved by a rather knowledgeable user, or after significant research, may not be a stub.

Comments and sugestions, please. DES (talk)</sup> 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds smart to me. Maurreen (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd substitute "internet" instead of "google" (thereby allowing the user to choose their preferred search tool). Otherwise looks OK. Perhaps add something like Of course, even a stub must contain enough information to adequately identify the subject intended by its author to avoid the ""Exampleton is a town" problem described above. --Scott Davis Talk 05:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks good - I suggest you post a comment about ths discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, since its WSS who deal most with these things. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, too. DES (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice -- I welcome some stub definitions. I remember I had an revert argument about this, the arguments which can be seen on the history of Dorotea Municipality.
I'd change the wording of the second sentense of your proposition. I think that an article that needs, say 30 minutes of research to expand, and when it is believed by the writer that no major subjects are left out, then it is not a stub anymore.
Fred-Chess 13:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Would this system would require stub-sorters to spend half an hour checking if the article can be improved on? I tend to re-tag at least fifty stubs per day with more accurate tags when I'm working on the project. Would I be required to spend half an hour on each one? GeeJo (talk) 15:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
No, that would be foolish. First of all this is an alternative standard, not a replacement. My idea is that when you say to yourself "hmm, it's got 12 sentances, but it still feels stubby" or "only six sentances, but seems complete" you cna ask yourself "do i think a random editor could probably improve this with just a quick google or other net search?" if the answer is yes, it is a stub. if the answer is no, then it isn't a stub. This is something for people to think about when deciding whether to inseret, keep, or remove a stub tag, not something to be measure with a stop watch. It is at best a rule of thumb. If something is clearly a stub, this standard is irrelevant. This is mostly for borderline cases. DES (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I was planning on not interfering, but seriously, isn't that exactly what the sentence "Note that a longer article may be a stub if the topic is complex enough; conversely, a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub" covers? --Sn0wflake 17:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Basically, which is why I didn't origianlly think I needed to seek explicit consensus for this paragraph. This is intended to be an expansion and clarification of the idea in that sentance, to try to give a rough operational test for when it applies. Also, that senatance has often been overlooked and people have argued about whether something is or isn't a stub based purely on length (in words or sentances, usually). I wanted there to be something clearer and more prominent to convety that idea, and something to point at when justifing a decision. I didn't think i was really introducing a new idea, or changing the estalished consensus, merely rewriting to better convey that consensus. That most comments have been positive makes me tend to think that I was right about the idea. The wording may be a different matter. DES (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
But why bother creating time-based definitions and such when the concept is already there? The guideline does not need to take people by the hand and show them exactly what to do, especially on an area as inconceivably hazy as stub-sorting. The whole size matter has never been something which was set in stone. The general consensus, up to this point, was: "Follow the 3-10 sentences guideline in a general manner, but USE GOOD SENSE, DAMMIT!". Any serious stub-sorter grasps that concept, eventually. Just let people use good sense. It rarely fails. --Sn0wflake 02:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
just my two cents here....I think that the guys who take stub-sorting serious have always been conscious of the pertaining question, and have been removing stub-notices all the way...although I appreciate the effort gone into this here, I simply don't see people reacting to it; they will continue to stubsort according to the length of the article, and (here I go again) stub sorting isn't, in the first place, about judging the quality and content of the article, but to get it where it will be noticed (or so we all hope), and there, "specialists" can take care of whether it is to be considered a stub or not...Lectonar 08:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This was aimed not so much at the experienced stub-sorters, the people who deal with inserting, changing, and removing stub tags all the time, as at the more casual editor who needs to decide whenther the article s/he has just created is a stub, or whether the one s/he has just expanded is still a stub. I am trying more to put into words what the expereinced stub-sorters already know and do than to change existing practice. DES (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Responding to GeeJo:
I think you and I are referring to opposite things. Because you seem to tag articles as stub -- whereas I often de-stub pages, and then have people come and stub them again.
There will probably always be this problem. When I write about very small municipalities in Sweden, I find it very hard to find any relevant information. I may spend an hour searching, in vain, just to try and get rid of the "stub" tag. Naturally, if I fail, it seems unlikely "any one" could "easily" expand the article. For instance, I dare you to expand on Haquin Spegel... or an even better example would by Folke Johansson Ängel where there just isn't any more information that I know... as I said on the history-article page I provided for Dorotea Municipality above, it is just be a waste of time tagging such articles as "stubs", because eventhough they are short, they will probably remain short for years, until a professor or similar knowledgeable person comes along. Fred-Chess 17:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see several editors respondign favorably to this, and only one who seems strongly opposed, and more on the grounds of redundancy than anything else, If I understand Sn0wflake's comments correctly. I take that as sufficient support for this change, and i am goign to isneret the text above in the page. it can always be removed if the consensus shifts. DES (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Source of content

Hi there, having a minor dispute with another editor as to whether Marlborough, Massachusetts (and several others) should be considered a stub. Are articles whose content is 95% derived from bots considered stubs? As to this example, it has exactly one line of information not added by a bot or a template. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO, the source of the content doesn't matter, teh length and depth does. I don't think i would call Marlborough, Massachusetts a stub, although it is marginal on depth IMO, I don't care whetehr a bot added content or a human did. If a bot can add enough content to an artilce to take it beyond the stub stage, then it isn't a stub. DES (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I think i've seen a lot of these articles about (to be honest) smaller US-communities, and they all follow up the same scheme; and I agree with DES here, that isn't a stub anymore...Lectonar 07:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Pity, that's not quite the answer I wanted to hear, though I'll go with it. It just troubles me to think that they might receive less attention without a stub tag. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly a stub. Most of the bot information is useless stuff that human's wouldn't bother to write. Almost everything about the town of 36,000 is still missing months later. Carina22 22:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's my personal take on the issue: Awhile back there was a project to check all the articles that were marked as stubs. If they were too large, the stub templates were removed. As far as I can tell, stub templates were removed from ALL the User:Rambot-generated articles. I felt that was very, very wrong at the time, and still feel the same today. When I am decided if an article is a stub, I do not count any of the Rambot-generated Demographic or Geography data. If a US city, community, or census-designated place article has only a few sentences that were not created by Rambot, then the article is still very much a stub and needs a geo-stub template. This issue should probably be addressed in the Stub article.

Marlborough, Massachusetts only has three sentences that were not created by User:Rambot. IT IS A STUB! BlankVerse ∅ 07:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)