Wikipedia talk:Substub

message: Please add your name here:
#Mike Storm
#Ilyanep (Talk) 18:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These quotes are out of context. They are referring to stubs, not the idea of substubs. --Mysteronald 10:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since substubs are a type of stub, and these quotes are referring to small stubs, they are perfectly appropriate. Mike∞Storm 16:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that these quotes are showing support for the idea of short stubs. Note they are talking about stubs which are short (which I agree are great things), not substubs as distinct objects (which I think are confusing and pointless). They don't actually say a thing about substubs. --Mysteronald 14:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Substub support

message: * Much to my amazement, I have seen a few miserable-looking stubs...blossom into real articles. Viajero
* A short stub does no harm. Fred Bauder
* I get enjoyment from creating stubs. Honestly, I think that something is better than nothing. Tim Chambers
* I don't see a one-line stub as a waste of time; that's more than was there before. Have faith, eventually they'll improve. Meeler
Mike∞Storm 14:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These quotes are out of context. They are referring to stubs, not the idea of substubs. --Mysteronald 10:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since substubs are a type of stub, and these quotes are referring to small stubs, they are perfectly appropriate. Mike∞Storm 16:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that these quotes are showing support for the idea of short stubs. Note they are talking about stubs which are short (which I agree are great things), not substubs as distinct objects (which I think are confusing and pointless). They don't actually say a thing about substubs. --Mysteronald 14:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Err...can we mark our opposition to this idea?  It seems to me that if an article is so short as to be useless, it is perfectly appropriate to delete it.  If somebody wants to write an article on the subject, of course they should feel free, but the substub is so short that there's no real reason to preserve it even in such a case. john k 17:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much easier to expand an article, even a substub, than it is to start one from scratch. That makes them very useful. Why do you feel, then, that substubs shouldn't be preserved and given the chance to be expanded? Mike Storm (Talk) 19:23, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: You're right -- it is rather worthless. However, isn't it easier to simply add information to a page, no matter how small, than it is to start one from scratch? Most people label starting a page as 'difficult', while they label adding info to a page 'easy'. Besides, as Jamesday said, small pages are great Google-bait. Mike Storm (Talk) 01:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That Google finds them is a good reason to delete them. A person coming in and finding "James Madison was very short" will form a bad opinion of Wikipedia. This will likely be worse than finding "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this name." -- Cyrius|✎ 02:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: As I said before, the point of substubs is to point them out so that they can be fixed. If you do not have the time or energy to expand them, then tag it with  and let someone else take care of it. However, you raise a very good point about the quality of information in Wikipedia, and I am going to amend Template:substub to reflect that. By the way, I'm not crying about people deleting small pages if that is their personal opinion, but I would like to convince them otherwise if they are doing it recklessly. Mike Storm (Talk) 22:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: James Madison, what is all this talk about James Madison about? Nobody in their right mind would write an article "James Madison was very short" unless he was an outright vandal, and that would be in itself a good enough reason to  deleted it, especially with this nicely-rounded article "James Madison" already being in existence. Why indeed don't you look at real "substub" articles such as Metal/punk and see what you can make of that one. There are loads of websites out there about it in Google and Yahoo, so it would be worth your while having a go at. Dieter Simon 00:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "James Madison was very short" isn't a substub, it's patent nonsense. The average person would go to the James Madison article to get useful info about him, not to find out that he was very short. While this statement might belong somewhere in the article, it cannot stand alone as even a substub because it is irrelevant to the main topic. If an editor cannot find a better thing to write when creating an article other than "James Madison was very short", then he/she obviously does not know enough about the subject to create such an article. Either that, or he/she is an outright vandal as said above, as it is embarrassingly obvious to the vast majority of users that "James Madison was very short" is not a satisfactory article. 218.212.119.63 09:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More talk 

message: Short stubs (IE, stubs that aren't candidates for speedy deletion, but are short) are fine.
Pages that aren't even short stubs are candidates for speedy deletion, which is fine.
A category to distinguish short stubs from long stubs serves no purpose. Martin 22:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes to short stubs, no to a category 

message: It's interesting to note that the Substub support list above was started without any corresponding Substub opposition list. Since that list has been added, the additions have almost all been to the opposition. Anyway, since we still don't seem to have a clear consensus, we are trying a survey on what to do with the substub template. See Template talk:Substub. --Michael Snow 21:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... no, not all the additions have been to the opposition list. And when I created the support vote, how did that prevent people from starting an opposition vote? Mike∞Storm 19:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Even after reading the explanation in this article, whether an article should be considered a sub vs. whether it should be considered a substub is still unclear to me.  For example, is Richard Linklater a sub or a substub?  It is barely two sentences long, but it has a filmography and an external link. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 20:31, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
:That is a short stub as far as I'm concerned. A substub would be "Richar Linklater makes movies." -- Cyrius|✎ 01:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a stub. How about "Richard Linklater is an American film director, best known for his independent films"? ··gracefool |☺ 03:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Definitely a stub, although an improved description would be more useful than a filmography. Mike∞Storm 23:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "Richard Linklater is an American film director" a substub? ··gracefool |☺ 13:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between sub and substub 

message: Substubs tend to be short for a reason... either because it is a future event with currently limited information (Power Rangers: SPD), which should be updated soon enough with the other stubs; the articles should be grouped or marked for deletion (Swazi embassy to Mozambique is surely a joke); can never be more than a definition (identically distributed) and possibly should be redirected or deleted rather than marked with substub; or gives all possible information (Ilia (Star Trek)).
Anyone who marks something as a substub for special attention without giving it the simple attention it needs is not benefitting the community. 
I think it's much more important to mark out stubs that might appear a bit longer (say, a paragraph or more - perhaps even a longer article not normally considered a 'stub') but which are missing more useful information. --Mysteronald 15:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriateness of substubs 

message: I am copying this across from where I listed it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting - it is also (in slightly different form) at Template talk:Substub. There are now (count 'em) 40 substubs. Personally, I believe this template has had its day. It may have been useful prior to subcategorising stubs, as a way of saying "these need priority attention", but now the best way to get editors to work on stubs is to put them in subcategories where they can be found, and substub defeats that purpose. Sure, some articles that would have been marked substub are potential candidates for vfd or merging, but the same is true with quite a number of stubs. I would like to propose reopening the debate on whether the substub template and associated category are worth keeping, or whether those articles which would have been marked  are better served with a subcategory of :Category:stub. So far, comment at WP:WSS has included redirecting  to , which would at least put all the unsorted mini-articles into one place. This sounds reasonable, but would have one side-effect, in that many ditors seem to put both substub and a subtemplate of stub onto short articles. If substub was redirected, the articles would appear in :Category:Stub and in one of its subcategories.  Grutness|hello?  07:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update there are currently no substubs.  Grutness|hello?  12:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abolition of substub

message: Short vs. long stubs is not a very good distinction. Stubs are short by definition. A long stub (2-3 paragraphs) is really a short article, not a stub. It should probably get an { {expand} } tag or something.
But, there do exist entries that are substubs, i.e. less than stubs. They are those which contain valid information, therefore aren't VfD or speedy deletion material, but don't conform to minimal standards of our style manual. They should therefore be corrected, i.e. turned into stubs, ASAP. If the substubs category contained only those, it could be a good resource for house-keeping. Zocky 19:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the meaning of sub-stub into something useful. 

message: A discussion is being held at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Substub over whether to deprecate the template and category. It hasn't been widely advertised, but I believe anyone can join. Kappa 21:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck happened to substub?! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What other category will Daniel L. Lurker fall under? 24.54.208.177 21:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template up for deletion 

message: I support substubs. At least then they can be expanded. Which is more likely to be worked on - A substub page, or a nonexistant page? 24.193.50.181 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can't always be expanded. Many stubs that have existed for a long time would in many cases meet the criteria for speedy deletion, which is easier than having substubs.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Er...

message: Important point of any wikipedia article to have at least one relevant, external, independent source. I think this is core element. Without it we cannot classify any long draw as a stub. 
So what to do if we see an unclassified article start without any external reference?
1. Be sure, the creator finished the work.
2. If it is easy to find a relevant reference to the topic, anyone can/ should do it.
3. If you not able to find any reference, probably target of fast deletion. 
Please check it, and If agreed/discussed I will move this point to the article.
--Rodrigo (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub needs source