Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 6

message: The definition of a stub was changed a couple weeks ago from an article with "3 to 10 short sentences" to something far less definitive.    I agree with keeping policies from getting in the way of doing the right thing, but there are times when two editors disagree on whether a stub tag should be removed, but still the article is so large that it may be beyond most people's ideas of the maximum size of a stub.  The definition now seems to be:
:Even a long article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub.
If there's disagreement over whether a stub should be removed, is there any firmer criteria that could be used?
One possible rough heuristic might be based on the search engine test.  Basically, you calculate the number of words in an article, and divide by number of million google hits for the article.  Then you compare that article's ratio to the ratio for related stub and non-stub articles.  If the ratio is significantly larger than all other related stubs, and is equal or greater to related non-stubs, then the stub tag should be removed, because it's larger than similar topics (while still taking into account article scope).
W/mghits vary quite a bit across different subjects, of course; we write articles based on how much encyclopedic information there is, not on how popular an article is.  So unpopular academic articles get fairly high w/mghits (the stub bicomplex number has 187500 w/mghits), while articles about very popular unacademic topics get lower w/mghits (Shinjuku has 200 w/mghits).  Nonetheless, comparing a stub to closely-related articles can give an approximate indication of an upper-limit for stub sizes, as an indication for when to remove a stub tag. Does this seem reasonable?  --Interiot 04:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There haven't been any real changes since Wai Wai's changes.  I'm fine with reverting to the Aug 7 version, or with clarifying the changes and getting at least minimal support for them.  And yes, I'd be happy to see some sort of limit added back in, especially since there's  and  for more complicated topics. --Interiot 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your suggestion about using search engine as a test is good.
When deciding whether the passage is a stub, search engine would help. You would search for articles which discuss on these topics. then compare between your article and third-party articles, if the article doesn't not cover most basic information which other third-party articles cover, it should be regarded as stub. 
It's similar to how one determines notability of a person, organization etc. There's no strict rules but it's still working.
Another question we may consider is if the article has a section stub, should we place a general stub too if the article in general does not cover most basic stuff?—Wai Wai (☎) 09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, what does "metallicar" mean there? Just H 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub tag removal 

message: Is it obvious to wikipedia users who read this guide what subst means? I did not know, and would have found it very helpful to have had a link to it's page  from the following sentence - which is emphasised - in the article:
Please note that stub templates should NEVER be "subst'ed".
I had assumed it meant substituted; and that I should not replace one stub for another, more appropriate, stub. A google search put me right on that, but it may just save others the trouble of searching for it's meaning if it was linked to from the emphasised sentence. What are your thoughts? Fuzzyslob 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to WP:SUBST. --TheParanoidOne 05:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On writing subst 

message: Non-WSS-projectpage-regulars may wish to note that there's a discussion here about whether to try to standardise the sizes of the images on stub templates.  Alai 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on stub image sizes 

message: There are a number of necessarily short articles about individual periodicals and the like. For a few there will be a substantial article, either their extremely important historical role, or because of some special feature.  For most there will be a brief history of the periodical, and a quick summary of what the publisher says, for those who don't need to try finding it in the publisher's outside link--which usually describes the detail fairly well.
These are being marked stib, but there won't be aythung much that will get added, and keeping the marker just distracts attention from the real stubs which need substantial additions.   is there a role for an indicator of some sort, saying something like "this short article is not a stub. But if there's more to add, please add it". DGG 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could give them a cookie... Just H 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: short pages

message: I need to find iformation on Eric Brault and how fast food changed america.
:Have you tried the Wikipedia:Reference desk? This page certainly isn't the best place to ask! Grutness...wha? 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fast Food- Historyday 

message: What percentage of wikipedia articles include one of the various stub templates? MrZaiustalk 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one's really sure and I for one don't know of any quick way to work it out. At a rough guesstimate probably about 30-40%. That sounds bad, but that's the way a wiki encyclopaedia works: articles start small as stubs before getting expanded, so there will always be a very large number of stubs. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd forgotten that User:Dantheox did an analysis about a year ago (here) which suggests about 36%. Which is probably where I'd heard the 30-40% figure originally. Grutness...wha? 12:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As of the 31st Oct db dump, 609,960 articles were marked as stubs.  At that point, 1,489,809 pages were mainspace non-redirects, so on that basis, a little under 41%.  Alai 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alai, where'd you find that? Thank you for that info, btw. Just H 04:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentage of articles

message: I count 15 cases of vandalism by anons in the last two weeks, going by the page history. Perhaps it's time to protect the page from edits by anons? Grutness...wha? 22:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm surprised it isn't already protected. --TheParanoidOne 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protect?

message: Can we clarify whether these are a good, or indeed an acceptable, thing?  Personally I think they're not, and that this page implies this by saying what a stub template should look like, but apparently the lack of an explicit Thou Shalt Not is sufficient for some people to get "creative" in the template space (which then encourages other wikiprojects to do the same).  The stub category page is surely a much better place for such links (eithe rin the form of a WPJ banner, or just a free-text link), as they don't put wikiproject links in the articlespace, it avoids the impression of article "ownership", and there's much less concern as to taking up disproportionate space.  Alai 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any of these; can you give a quick example? On principle, if I understand what you're saying, yes there should be a Thou Shalt Not Put WP links on Article Pages. Use the talk page, if anything. -- nae'blis 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick example is  - not picking on WikiProject India, it's just the first one I thought of. Crystallina 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, after I replied yesterday I came across another example. I did understand you correctly and I do think it's a bad idea, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Unless all stub templates are manufactured like  to hide themselves, I'd say this is an entirely uncontroversial addition to the guideline (and even if they are, I still think it's a bad idea to include WP links). Give it another 24-48 hours to see if anyone does object; you might also run it by the Village Pump for policy. -- nae'blis 23:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd agree. I'd also add that it's perfectly OK to put a project link in the category - and in fact would make more sense to do so, since anyone who is deliberately seeking out stubs to expand on a subject would go to the category - and that's exactly the sort of person that a Wikiproject would appeal to. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good thing as well. Anything in the stubs without being an eyesore is more than welcome. Hell, if putting 10 stubs on there or saying one editor will pay somebody $10 to make the article bigger -- more power to them, man. Just H 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two more examples:  and . Both of those stubs also used to be in boxes and had extra space around them, but at least those 'features' have been removed. BlankVerse 09:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject links on stub templates