Wikipedia talk:Perfect stub article

message: I would like comment on the start of my research. It will progress. However, my goal is to get rid of the stub desgination. My article is Simone Cousteau
:Well, the Preferences page suggests "500, 1000, etc." as a good "threshold for stub display." MadEwokHerd 00:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: When does a stub become not a stub?

message: I have found stubs useful when building disambiguation pages and for getting titles straight when working on an interconnected set of articles. But I've also had one issue or area that concerns me. When checking links to names, etc. I've encountered stubs. Sometimes I add one or two facts. Then I'm faced with the question, should I remove the stub message or notice?  
Sometimes, the answer is yes, the stub has grown into an article. But there are other cases. Sometimes it is no longer a stub, but its not an article I'm satisfied with. Of course, there is always the option of listing it on Articles Needing Attention with some explanation. But I'd like to suggest a middle ground. There could be an  Articles Needing Expansion with an accompanying message. This could work like a stub. The article no longer shows up as a Stub, but other Wikipedians or readers would be alerted to the idea that this is an inadequate article. Just as we sometimes use What Links Here from the Stub page, looking for something we'd be interested in writing, we could use that feature with Articles Needing Expansion.
Another reason: I'm sometimes hesitant to start a talk page for a stub, since they complicate mergers and redirects. But if I'm pretty sure the article is under the right title (and only needs expansion), I'd feel better about describing the article's limitations on the talk page. Lou I 22:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This does exist, the template is Expand. Triddle 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Short Article Proposal

message: Jiang claims that an article is not a stub if it is larger than one paragraph. I think it's any article that's substantially undernourished. I see there is debate on this topic. Is there any consensus? Does any page attempt to address this terminology issue? jengod 22:25, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
:There's been much discussion, I think, but don't know where.  I more or less agree with Jiang (my preferences mark a 500 word stub limit). I think there's a metawikipedia page called something like Kill the stub pages which has a discussion about size, and ml archives probably have oodles of discussion about "what is an article". Tuf-Kat
::Sometimes an article is a stub because it is missing elements that are critical about the subject of the article.  For instance, There are many stubs about writers that include a biography but not a book list, or a book list but not a biography.  Many of these are quite long; however, a list of books is not an encyclopedia article, and a biography about an author that fails to list their books doesn't describe the author very well.  At the same time, if the author lived an obscure life, and wrote one book that turned out to be very important, two sentences mentioning what is known about the author and mentioning the book (and linking to its article) might be enough to not be a stub. --ssd 04:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of a Stub?

message: Aside from articles that deserve speedy deletion, why do people waste their time (and ours) on articles that have only one line? Surely, other than defining, say, a city or town, shouldn't there be more content if they are going to create the article?  Please help me, I'm getting annoyed.--naryathegreat 17:21, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
: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. Meelar (talk) 19:51, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)
:It is if it is no more than a dicdef, for something that does not belong in a dictionary (a company name for instance).  And I don't feel that they improve, they stay the same line forever.  And if you're going to create an article, be ready to put some effort into it right then and there.--naryathegreat 21:37, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
::Forever is a long time especially on a wiki! I've seen loads of one line articles improve over time. theresa knott 21:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Wikipedia:Perfect stub article and m:Kill the Stub Pages. -- Kokiri 07:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A stub will be seen and improved, a missing article is less likely to be created if you, the person who sees the need, fails to create it. So better create a stub than leave a gap. Bmills 07:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles