Wikipedia talk:Permastub

message: This is a guideline, "which many editors agree with", yet it doesn't even have a talk page. Could this not be merged somewhere else? Stevage 11:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this a guideline?

message: I find it extremely ironic that the section on Permastub, which contains instructions to merge the stub into another article, is
*itself a stub, and
*flagged to be merged.
J. Paupore 01:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That irony is almost reason to keep it in said state indefinitely. The best definitions are demonstrations. :) —mako (talk•contribs) 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: Matthew Algie. There's not much room for expansion beyond stub status, yet it still has 12 references. I wouldn't recommend this one for deletion at all (it was kept in an AfD) but it also has very little prospect for expansion and could probably never become featured due to the lack of sources, although it is still valid in and of itself. What's the minimum length for a GA anyway?-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a permastub?

message: I find the following advice, durrently in the essay -- questionable:
In my opinion the advice in this essay shares a general weakness of the "mergist" philosophy -- it does not appreciate the importance of maintaining links in maintaining the usefulness of wikis like the wikipedia.
Wikis are like databases in that removing the links erodes the value of the information.  It is possible to pore over a raw dump of the information in a database.  Sometimes it is necessary to do this if the database software crashes, or the database itself becomes corrupted.  Getting information from those raw dumps is possible, but it can take several orders of magnitude more effort.
I find mergists recommendations can be alarmingly arbitrary.  Their recommendation as to which article should be the target of the merge, and which should be redirected are often completely arbitrary.  And their recommendation that the information that won't fit in the merged article is beneath mention often strikes me as shallow and alarmingly arbitrary.
I have frequently found myself pointing out to merge proponents that the articles they suggest merging are related to multiple other articles, and that their recommendation to merge an article into a single other article is a disservice to those readers who are interested in the article's relationship to the other articles the mergists didn't recommend it being merged with.
The essay asserts:
Well, sometimes a topic is important, and could be extensively covered, except that most of the sources remain classified.  The dark prison and the salt pit are examples of articles that would be much longer if most of the official documents about them didn't remain classified.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find the advice in this essay questionable 

message: Sometimes small towns with very low populations can be permastubs, but it seems compulsory to have these pages, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Township,_Harlan_County,_Nebraska  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeninventor999 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small incorporated cities or unincorporated places? 

message: This essay is contradictory. On the one hand, it makes the perfectly reasonable claim that:
Finished [informative, concise] permastubs ... don't need expansion.
On the other hand, it makes the rather absurd claim that:
Some permastubs may be unsatisfying articles—they leave little potential for future editing.
(As though "potential for future editing" is what makes for a great article, or as though the proper business of an encyclopedia is to be edited, rather than to transmit accurate knowledge of the world to its readers! Surely by such a criterion, every bad article is a "satisfying" article!)
IMO, the latter, absurd claim should be removed from the essay, both because it is absurd without being amusing or otherwise of value, and because it contradicts the other claim. Say "aye" if you agree - for whatever reason - that it should be removed. Otherwise, please say "nay", and help me to understand why you think it should be kept. Thanks. Zazpot (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree, have boldly edited it out, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory 

message: Just going to leave this here. Diderot's entry for aguaxima:
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diderot - Aguaxima 

message: The primary objection to permastubs is that they can never be expanded. While this is not a problem for paper encyclopedias -- if anything, it is a virtue due to strict limits on space in print media -- it is an irritant for many Wikipedians. They are often evidence of articles ported from old, public domain encyclopedias. New Wikipedians see them, attempt to expand them only to fail, & become discouraged in their abilities. Established Wikipedians dislike them because they inflate the number of stubs on Wikipedia -- which hovers embarrassingly at about 50% of all articles. And there is the issue that with so many permastubs they are potential targets for trolls & troublemakers, who can insert nonsense or untruths in Wikipedia knowing their vandalism is likely to persist for years. (Everyone would admit there are too many articles on Wikipedia for its active editors to adequately monitor.)One solution would be not to create them in the first place. If possible add the content to an existing relevant article, or to hold off from creating the article until more information can be collected. Nonetheless, sometimes creating a permastub is unavoidable; on that occasion, all we can do is wish there was a better label for this category, which would make their presence less obnoxious. -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts