Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another suggestion about stub definitions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stub position 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "Exampleton is a town" does establish notability. One sentence is fine as a start. Carina22 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minimum stub size 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stub club? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alternate stub standard

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Source of content