Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Stub. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Stub tag removal

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. [1] 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)

I hate "rewrite everything at once for no real reason" edits like the one you mention, since they hide substantiative and "grammar-worsening" changes in among all the needless rearranging. It should probably just have been reverted at the time, and the editor enjoined to break down the changes into more manageable chunks to more sensibly gauge consensus for them. (Possibly we should still do so: did anything much happen in the meantime aside from the usual vandalism reverts?) I think the "absolute size" test is essentially sound. That's in terms of sentences, as the old text said, not counting raw article length in characters, which can be inflated by lists, tables, and other non-main-body-text markup. I don't aggressively remove stub tags on the basis of their being 11 sentences, but there's a point past which "expand" or "sectstub" would be more appropriate, even if it is a "complicated" topic. (After all, if it's complex but obscure, that could be a recipe for Eternally Stub-Tagged.) Alai 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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 {{sectstub}} and {{expansion}} for more complicated topics. --Interiot 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the definition of stubs (I simply extracted it from the previous edition):

A stub is an article that is too short to be genuinely useful, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that even a longer article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub.
A stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub.

My understanding:
There's no clear-cut rule what is regarded as "stub". It is not defined simply by sentences. The indication of 3-10 sentences is just a comment. The original passage itself even says Note that even a longer article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub.

How about if the passage has 11 sentences but is still too short or incomplete to be useful to a reader? Should we remove the stub?

Quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style which is worth considering:

“

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

”

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)

I'm curious, what does "metallicar" mean there? Just H 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On writing subst

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)

I've added a link to WP:SUBST. --TheParanoidOne 05:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on stub image sizes

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)

Deprecated?

In the section Categorizing Stubs, it says Category: Stubs deprecated, but still receives a few articles periodically Why is that page deprecated? Isn't it being used to display articles with uncategorized stub status?

short pages

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)

Maybe we could give them a cookie... Just H 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fast Food- Historyday

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)

Percentage of articles

What percentage of wikipedia articles include one of the various stub templates? MrZaius^talk 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Alai, where'd you find that? Thank you for that info, btw. Just H 04:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

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)

Agreed. I'm surprised it isn't already protected. --TheParanoidOne 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject links on stub templates

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)

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)

A quick example is {{India-musician-stub}} - not picking on WikiProject India, it's just the first one I thought of. Crystallina 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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 {{selfref}} 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)

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)

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)

Two more examples: {{California-county-route-stub}} and {{California-State-Highway-stub}}. Both of those stubs also used to be in boxes and had extra space around them, but at least those 'features' have been removed. ^Blank ^Verse 09:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub?

Help me here, please,

When is a stub, just a stub, and when is it, just a very short article?

Lets take the article Adda of Bernicia for example, Adda was the third known ruler of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Bernicia which he ruled from 560 to 568.

This article is short, it has one more parragraph, and its considered a stub. Now a stub, is a short article that it should be expanded, but in this case, How can you expand it???

He ruled a very small kingdom, for only 8 years in the XI century, and besides the obvious time lenght, there was little history recorded during that time, the first one who wrote something about him was Bede 200 years later, and what he wrote is what the article has.

There is really nothing to expand, because nothing else is known. He is however, of a historical importance, just for being the king of a kingdom, that merged with a kingdom, to form a kigndom, that merged with other kingdoms, to form a kingdom, that merged with other kingdoms, to form the United Kingdom.

I dont consider this a stub, just a very short article, that unfortunelly has nothing to expand. what do yu think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mijotoba (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's always pretty arbitrary - what some people regard as a stub others don't. Basically if somethings got only a short amount of text (infoboxes and images aren't counted), then it's regarded as a stub. In cases where there's not a lot that can be said, though - like the article you mention - it becomes a lot trickier. Nothing else at all? Not even a place of birth or his relation if any to Æthelric? Mmm... it may be permanently at that size. I'd agree that in a case like that it probably doesn't make much sense to regard it as a stub. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well his place of birth was Bernicia, where in especific, no way of knowing, doubt he even knew as in that time, borders changed often and so did names and cities died and were born sporadically. Pretty much it jsut wasnt recorded, he, like Æthelric were sons of Ida of Bernicia, who was the oldest is also tricky to know, for the order of kings is not known either. I tried to look for more info on the subject, but there is none.

So you agree it shouldnt be a stub, what should one do now? "un-stub" it, delete the stub templates, should one put a comment in the page's discussion expressing the reasons why it shouldnt be a stub? or is this a matter that should just be ignored, well i cant ignore it, it irks me. mijotoba 06:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - have a look at what i've done to the article [2]. That should give you some idea of how to treat this sort of case in future :)

I never worry about the specific length of an article. I read the article, and if after I finish reading the article, I feel like I was left with a lot of unanswered questions and the article is fairly short (without counting words, lines, or paragraphs), then I tag is as a stub. On the other hand, I sometimes come across fairly short articles that seem to capture the essence of the subject as well as any typical encyclopedia does, and I really have no questions left. If those are tagged as stubs, then I remove the tags. The point is, I don't get hung-up on word counts or the like--I base it on the content of the article. True, I mainly stick to one broad topical area that I know fairly well now (which makes it easier to identify relative stubbiness compared to the rest of the articles in the area), but I was doing that shortly after I started editing. I guess that is partly because I never even read the guidelines on stub length, but I understood the goal of identifying stubs. It just seems silly to base the decision strictly on article length and ignore how adequately (or not) the topic is covered. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 07:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See the comments further up the page under "Some stubs ARE articles". Both content and wordcount are important considerations when thinking about what a stub is and what a stub isn't - you may well find that some of those arrticles you removed the stub tag from have had it re-added. A third consideration often mentioned is what the article is actually about - an example that I often use is that a three paragraph article on a small village is far less likely to be a stub than an article of the same length on a major city. Grutness...wha? 09:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I did read the comments above and waited until here to comment. :-) You essentially captured my whole point. If you are talking about the Wikitotem god of the WikiWiki tribe, maybe one or two brief paragraphs are adequate to describe the entire philosophy of that minor diety. Obviously 3 pages on God might still be a stub given the breadth of that topic. The length of the article (word count, etc.) is the easy/automated way to tell if something is stubby, but it should not be the only factor. Quality is often more important than quantity. Insisting on a certain length for an article to escape being stigmatized as a stub, sometimes only leads to bloat. Other times, it can help improve an article tremendously. Additionally, I have no problem is a person re-adds a stub tag to an article that he or she feels is a stub (unless the decision is based strictly on length without bothering to read the article). It's always possible I have some knowledge that fills in gaps that others see and I don't. But if an automated stub-tagging bot comes along and tags a concise, yet otherwise perfectly adequate article as a stub simply because it was programmed to tag any article smaller than X as a stub, I think that's not very helpful. Of course, that's probably less often the case than that same bot being helpful. It would be nice if there was a way to flag a short, but complete page as such so bots wouldn't flag it. But that would involve more templates and bloating the article with useless meta codes, thus the cure probably would be worse than the perceived problem. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC there was something like that for a while - an invisible template called something like {{notstub}} - it ended up being deleted though as it was actually more of a problem than a solution (my memory of this is a little vague, so apologies if it's not quite accurate, but that's about the size of it). Grutness...wha? 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... interessting... a blue link. Seems to be raqrely if ever used though. Perhaps we need to look at this? I'll add a note on WP:WSS/P... Grutness...wha? 02:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)