Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Template:Substub

Introduction to substubs

I created this type of stub because I saw a reference to it on Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and thought that it needed to become official. Mike Storm 02:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that this should include deletion in the message. If they qualify for deletion, the speedy deletion tag seems more appropriate. This seems to be for things which could be deletable but which are about topics which merit expansion rather than deletion. Jamesday 11:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The message about the "quality of information" in Wikipedia was added because someone brought up a very good point in Wikipedia talk:substub about how people who found a substub with a search engine (very likely) would see unworthwhile information and therefore form a bad opinion of Wikipedia. Please don't let this turn into an edit war.Mike Storm (Talk) 14:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your threat of edit war is an inappropriate first step in a dispute over wording. If you are going to put official sounding notices on pages, you should achieve consensus on their wording and necessity. If necessary, we can put up a request for comments. I ask you to consider the response of a contributor, new to Wikipedia, who gets this "substub" notice slapped onto his first contribution. Is it welcoming? Is it kind, or is it rude? Is it necessary? Next I ask you to consider the response of someone who comes to Wikipedia to look up information and encounters this current notice: "This article is a substub. A substub is even smaller than a normal stub, and does not reflect well on the quality of information in Wikipedia. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Does the message itself reflect well on Wikipedia? I think not. Is it useful to someone not already familiar with Wikipedia jargon? I think not. The message also presents your point of view ("does not reflect well on the quality of information in Wikipedia") without attributing it, and without consideration of other points of view (e.g. "a short article is one step on the way to a fuller article, and is the way by which Wikipedia becomes more complete.)" Neither point of view needs to be there. And while you may find utility in having a category for both stubs and substubs (probably because "stub" is dreadfully overused that it has no residual utility, I see little need for a different message for the two: anyone who needs to distinguish between them can do so by looking at the category.- Nunh-huh 02:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't believe in stubs much. They are too easy to create and are too often created by people who don't know anything about the topic (or they would produce a longer article). Accordingly they are quite often inaccurate. Very short stubs not needed at all. Better the user find no reference and search in Google than be annoyed by finding one of these. I've again and again made redirects out of short stubs which sometimes give information on a name found once only in one single work in all of human literature (other than a few references in comments on that work). Presumably the person who created them actually didn't know anything about the name, was just rushing through some handbook and adding reworded information, too often wrongly reworded. Such stubs are worse than nothing.

Don't encourage stubs of any kind. Blow them away. Yes ... they can become good articles. But it is just as easy for someone who knows something about a topic to start fresh than to use many stubs. If there is some concern about politeness, which Nunh-huh makes a good point about, then have a standard and polite template put on the user's talk page when short-short items are removed.

Perhaps what is needed instead is a template for very short articles that supplies no message but which counteracts a stub message. Some users stick stub notices on articles which are no shorter than many articles in standard paper encyclopedias and can stand quite well at their current size. Expanding such an article may be possible and even desirable, as with any article, but is often not at all necessary. Such a template could be placed by people who know something about the substance of the article to indicate that a short article as it stands is fine and should not display a stub message, including any stub message that someone adds without checking that it was marked as a short no-stub article. See for example Shamgar, which essentially relates everything known about the character mentioned in two verses in the Bible. One could expand this with bits of scholarly speculation, discussions of the etymology of the name, and so forth. Someone who has access to further information would be quite welcome to add that information, as with any article, regardless of size. But as it stands, the article requires no expansion. I could remove the stub notice, but someone would be likely to add it again.

My POV is that people should not be encouraged to create stubs. I could create a hundreds stubs a day based on individual POV books.

Stubs themselves are somewhat controversial. I don't believe there is any consensus on use of a sub-stub template. A sub-stub article should be deleted. That is my POV.

Jallan 17:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Nunh-huh's message: First: "threat of edit war"? I was trying to guard against one. Maybe it was a little presumptuous, but I really don't feel like having one right now. Second: you should check out Wikipedia talk:substub if you feel that I am not doing this without consensus. The "quality of information" message was not my idea, and nor is it my opinion, I assure you. The "official-sounding" notices were just my efforts to make sure that I got the word out about substubs in a timely manner. Heck, substubs weren't even my idea. Please don't accuse me of being POV without doing your research in the other discussion forums. Third: your alternate message, "a short article is one step..." is certainly a great idea, and a much better wording, but a little long for a template message. I'll try to incorporate it into the template, unless you do it first. Fourth: if you want to discuss the existence of substubs, then please do it on Wikipedia talk:substub. This talk page is about the template message. Fifth: must you be so rude in your posts? Have I personally attacked you in some way as to provoke you into posting what some would call a flame? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 19:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My concern was for the offputting wording of the template message. The current one seems fine. I have no strong feelings on the existence of substubs; I don't think the classification very useful, but that's fine. And if others don't object to the injection of self-referential meta-content into the content area of the wikipedia, I'm surprised, but that's ok, too. As for "fifth": I see nothing "rude" in my message, though it is certainly "cool" in tone, mostly because of your perceived edit war threat. If you didn't mean the threat, that's nice. - Nunh-huh 19:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Jallan's message: If you don't support stubs at all, then I suggest that you try to delete the {{stub}} message and see what kind of reaction you get. Furthermore, as I explained to Nunh-huh, this talk page is about the template message. If you want to talk about substubs themselves, then do that on Wikipedia talk:substub. I believe that I have refuted all of your main arguments against substubs there, and I have no desire to repeat myself. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 19:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"If you don't support stubs at all ..." Why the conditional? If I were totally opposed to any stubs at all, I would have said so. And even if that were my position, which it is not, I would not be so silly as to unilaterally remove a commonly used template without consensus. I believe stubs should be generally discouraged, which is not the same thing as being prohibited, far more useful would be a distinction between a poor stub and a good but short article.

You have not refuted my arguments on any page that I can see. Nor do I see a consensus. I see arguments for and against and a complaint that you skewed the discussion by not including an oppose section. I see a suggestion that you should not be surprised if articles marked as substubs are speedily deleted. I also recognize that adding a feature doesn't require as much consensus as removing or changing a feature. No-one is compelled to use added features.

As to posting here, I suggest adding to Nunh-huh's note at the pump the suggestion that all discussion should appear at Wikipedia talk:substub or indicating that template formatting alone should be discusssed here and anything else at Wikipedia talk:substub, whichever you prefer.

Jallan 21:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories

Oughtn't the category name be plural? That's the standard form for categories. The category contains "articles which are substubs", not "articles which are substub". The latter is ungrammatical. --Eequor 16:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The message is not POV, do you really think that there's a substub anywhere that reflects well on the info in Wikipedia? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 18:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Making a statement about how something appears is POV. Saying these articles reflect poorly upon Wikipedia is an open invitation for speedy deletion. --Eequor 18:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... good point. You're right. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 23:43, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Backgrounds

I made the substub boilerplate message have an orange background because substubs need that extra attention and loving care, and this gets them noticed. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 18:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to a color that's a bit easier on the eyes. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 19:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Orange was an ugly color, as it clashes with blue and purple. Teal isn't much better, it makes the external link difficult to see. How do the following look to you?

• #ffcc99

This article is a substub, but may eventually become a full article. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• #ffff99

This article is a substub, but may eventually become a full article. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• #ff99cc

This article is a substub, but may eventually become a full article. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

My preference would be for something close to the first two. The external link is difficult to see against pink as well. --Eequor 19:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A nice effect of the un-<div>'d message (for me, at least) was that it all fit on one line. With the narrower space given to it, it now takes two. Minor, but something to consider. --Eequor 19:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I like the first one, the orange color, best. I changed my mind - I like the bottom one, the reddish-pink color, best. I have no problem seeing the external link on that one. By the way, what do you mean, "un-<div>'d"? As far as I can tell, the message is still a div, and it's all on one line. If it's on two lines, then you can edit the width: thingy until it displays properly on your computer. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Er, I guess it always was a <div>, wasn't it? I meant before the width was specified. But it's not really important anyway. =) --Eequor 20:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No background color, please. So-called substubs are already so small it's hard to see the article; no need to overwhelm it with a message so overdramatic that you never notice the article at all. --Michael Snow 22:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second what Michael Snow said. The stub message should be small as to not be larger than the article it marks, and not be quite so blazingly obnoxious as these hot colors. I'd rather post it on speedy delete than put this kind of ugly banner on it. --ssd 05:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, no background color is needed. In fact, the message should not even be bold because it is so easy to see on such short pages. —siroχo 00:37, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Since the idea of categorizing substubs separately from stubs is controversial (see Wikipedia talk:Substub), I think we need to see how people feel about the continued use of this template. I'm constructing a survey below. --Michael Snow 19:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notes on wording

"The first step to becoming a full article" doesn't seem quite right to me. This isn't the first step for most other articles, so, in particular, the first step isn't really correct. Also, in my opinion, the reader oughtn't be reminded that the article can't get any worse. --Eequor 22:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. The first step is to create a beginning which can attract the attention of others, notably ia search engines finding the article. It's a small beginning but still a beginning. Jamesday 09:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is this template so long? The text wraps on my display, which doesn't make a very visually appealing endnote. This template shouldn't be longer than the stub template. ✏ Sverdrup 13:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Survey

Is it worthwhile to keep the {{substub}} template? Or should we redirect it to the {{stub}} template?

It is debatable whether this has been decided already. Please see Wikipedia talk:Substub#Substub support (and Wikipedia talk:Substub#Substub opposition below).

Pros and cons

Arguments for keeping

• Substubs need extra attention that can be generated by using the template.
• Substubs need a unique notice indicating that somebody has interest in the article, despite its poor quality (discouraging speedy deletions).
• By similarity with categories, substubs should use the most specific classification appropriate.

(In response to the arguments for redirecting):

• You can use the stub message, but isn't it better to be more specific and draw more attention to the fact that this particular stub is really small?
• When using the substub message, it adds more characters than the stub template. This actually makes it useful, because then in lists such as Wikipedia:Shortpages, we can differentiate the substubs which have template message from the ones that don't.
• Category:Stub isn't too large to be useful -- I, for one, use it frequently.
• The substub template message tempts people to expand upon it because (eventually, if substubs become an accepted policy) they will realize that while stubs are in need of attention, substubs are in need of extreme attention.
• Of course there is a way to differentiate between a stub and a substub, which becomes quite clear after reading a few articles on Wikipedia:Shortpages: stubs are short articles, and substubs are so short that they are no longer than a dictionary definition.
• Substubs are indeed a type of stub. However, the argument that we would need both templates for one article is ridiculous, because we can do one or both of these things: 1) include both Category:Stub and Category:Substubs in the template message, and/or 2) make Category:Substubs a subcategory of Category:Stub.
• How would a substub message make people want to delete an article? Not having the message would tempt them to delete it.
• It's quite obvious what a substub is, even to newbies. They see sub-, which means small, and then they see -stub, which also means small. What's the conclusion? Substubs are really small. Newbies will want an explanation before their articles are redirected, and not doing so might drive new users away.

Arguments for redirecting

• Substubs are just a type of stub. The stub template can be used on substubs just like all other stubs.
• Adding a substub template adds more characters than the stub template. Therefore, it makes it harder to pick out the shortest stubs when organizing by character count, as is done in Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is one of the shortest articles.
• Category:Stub is already too large to be useful. With continued use Category:Substubs will be too.
• A substub message does not make people any more likely to expand and improve an article than the existing stub message.
• There is no sensible way to differentiate a substub from a "normal" stub.
• Since substubs are a type of stub, shouldn't they be included in both categories? But to do that, we would need to use both templates on all substubs.
• Using a substub message may tempt some people to speedily delete articles when this would not be appropriate.
• Newbies have a good chance of intuitively understanding what a "stub" is. They are much less likely to immediately understand when they see something called a "substub".
• We already have too many different messages in the article namespace.
• The whole purpose of labelling something 'substub' is already covered by labelling it 'stub'.
• Subsubstub?

Voting

See also Wikipedia talk:Substub#Vote

Keep

Substubs should continue to be distinct from stubs.

1. Eequor 20:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 21:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Dmn 23:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. —siroχo 02:09, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) (even if the categories are merged, I like the idea of differing messages)
6. Neutrality 02:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. Pjacobi 07:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Jamesday 09:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) They are a type of stub which is deserving of highlighting for more rapid attention than the few tens of thousands of larger stubs.
9. Everyking 16:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. Timwi 21:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. Dieter Simon 22:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) . If a substantial amount of relevant info has been given in two or three lines of substub, there is no less reason to expand a substub than there is to expand a stub. Keep it distinct.
12. ··gracefool |☺ 01:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13. Rossumcapek 23:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
14. Frazzydee 19:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC): Substubs can be swiftly made into stubs, and the template is useful to those who don't have the time to make the article a bit bigger. It discourages speedy deletions, and allow users to differentiate between small articles and unnervingly miniscules ones.
15. Lvr 11:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
16. Slowking Man 19:00, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
17. Skyler 23:19, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC) - Though I believe the use of stubs and substubs should be clarified.
18. rhyax 05:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I agree with Skyler, and i would add clarified in the template.
19. — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 15:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Agree with Skyler.
20. Andre 21:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

Substubs should not be distinct from stubs.

1. Michael Snow 21:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. older≠wiser 21:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. —Kate | Talk 21:38, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
4. Jallan 22:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Netoholic 23:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Cyrius|✎ 00:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. Cribcage 02:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Sean Curtin 06:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Johnleemk | Talk 09:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. Jwrosenzweig 20:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
11. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 21:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12. Noisy 12:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13. Zoney 17:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
14. anthony (see warning) 21:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) Not in terms of the message.
15. pstudier 00:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
16. Cookiecaper 16:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
17. Sam [Spade] 20:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
18. Zarggg 02:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Stubs are useful, but there's really no need to differentiate.)
19. squash 03:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) There is no need for another stub thing, one is sufficent and only makes a person guessing about if a article should be substub or stub...
20. Dyl 14:36, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) (meaning of stub is easy to figure out for new users, substub is not)
21. john k 19:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
22. --Viki 16:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
23. Yath 08:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) substubs are the work of Hastur
24. Mysteronald 12:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) Substubs are stubs.
25. Grutness|^hello? 07:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) no need to differentiate
26. -- ericl234 ^talk 08:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

It should be noted that Category:Substubs organizes substubs. --Eequor 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Since substubs are a type of stub, shouldn't they be included in both categories? But to do that, we would need to use both templates on all substubs.

This statement contains its own refutation. --Eequor 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I vote against everything stubstub because Eequor seems to think articles longer than 500 characters can qualify as stubstubs. --ssd 01:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some longer articles do. Naming something a stub or a substub isn't so much a reflection on an article's size, as on its content (or rather, its lack of content). A longwinded essay which fails to establish context necessary to the reader's understanding is no less a substub than a meaningless one-line article. --Eequor 00:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Newbies have a good chance of intuitively understanding what a "stub" is. They are less likely to immediately understand when they see something called a "substub".

However, both Template:Stub and Template:Substub link to informative descriptions. --Eequor 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but can you count on people to click to read those descriptions? --Michael Snow 21:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It also can't be counted on that they will do anything to help, regardless of what we call the article. At worst they'll take no interest and just move on without contributing.

To me, the substub message shows more hopefulness than the stub message. Maybe newbies will be encouraged by that. --Eequor 21:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yay! More debate! Just so everyone notices, I posted a few responses to the arguments in the Arguments for redirecting section in the Arguments for keeping section. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 21:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personaly, when i first started, i thought that a substub was longer than a stub, eg, only just a stub, but then i was confused as to why we have ether, they should all be propper articals! I can wish... tooto 01:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow, I find it somewhat curious that, with the exception of Mike Storm, you seem not to have contacted anyone who indicated their support for substubs. In fact, all the users whom you contacted with a "form letter" on their talk pages (Cyrius, Duncharris, Jallan, John Kenney, Kate, Maximus Rex, and MyRedDice) have indicated, in some way, their opposition to substubs.

While such a beginning is possibly deserved given the beginnings of the poll on Wikipedia talk:Substub, it's rather hypocritical behavior in light of your comment at Wikipedia talk:Substub#Survey. --Eequor 22:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why I should be obligated to rally support for a position I oppose. The survey is designed to give both sides a fair hearing. Note that I also posted a general announcement to the Village Pump. Supporters of substubs can recruit like-minded people just like I did. --Michael Snow 22:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. That was also done somewhat later. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to "retaliate" for the way the cited poll was conducted. In fact, I hadn't intended for this survey to start quite so soon, but you went ahead and started voting in it, so I figured I would work with what you did in the wiki spirit. I had left a message for Mike on his talk page asking him to contribute to the arguments for keeping the template, because I felt I wouldn't be able to do his case justice. My plan was to get both sets of arguments ready before actually starting, which is why I didn't vote yet myself while I was designing the survey. --Michael Snow 22:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Substubs

Since you participated in the discussion on this subject, could you express your opinion on what to do with the substub template at Template talk:Substub? Thanks. --Michael Snow 21:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Presumably this notice would have sufficed for everyone else as well. It seems to have done well enough for the others who agree with you, even without making a case for your position. The message was neutral, but the delivery was not. --Eequor 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So the way I see it, I am trying to contribute to a process that can treat both points of view fairly. I would have liked a little more preparation, as suggested by Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, but I still think we can have a fair survey. Naturally, that requires that both sides promote their positions as best they know how.

May I also suggest that accusations of "hypocritical behavior" are fairly strong language, and many people might take offense at such things? Please remember to assume good faith. --Michael Snow 22:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had been assuming good faith on your part until you posted an identical notice to seven people who seemed likely to support your position and none who opposed you except for the author. It would have been fairly easy to send the message to everyone else as well, but you did not. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your change to the intro: first, from appearances, the majority is in favor of substubs. Second, your actions have voided any justification you might have had for arguing the merits of the previous survey. --Eequor 22:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could indicate why there is anything at all wrong with the version: Some related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Substub, but did not reach a consensus. Are you seriously contending that a consensus was reached? Unless that really is your position, I see no reason to state that It is debatable whether this has been decided already, which is the language I changed. I will readily concede that a small majority favored substubs in the previous survey, but as I've noted, all but one of those were added while the option to oppose was not offered at all. And since the way I see it, the supporters of substubs have in both cases started these surveys on their way prematurely, I feel perfectly justified in arguing the merits of the previous survey. --Michael Snow 22:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should a new survey be started, then, giving equal time and voice to both parties? I've personally decided to be neutral in regards to substubs. supadawg 22:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully not; I still think this one is quite fair, in spite of the premature start. I would like a more neutrally oriented introduction, however. --Michael Snow 22:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You did have a chance for neutrality. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did say it was debatable whether a decision had been reached. Majority support seems a sufficient indication that it had been, however.

As the creator of the survey, you had the responsibility to see that it was undertaken in a proper manner. You might have set a starting time, or asked others not to vote yet, or removed my vote, or any number of things. Instead you contacted everyone who agreed with you. You have no justifications. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I've tried to illustrate, I was trying to construct the survey in a collaborative process. I can now see that I should have put up an obvious notice that it was not open yet. I figured removing a vote would be taken as offensive. I did not contact anyone (except Mike Storm) until after you had voted and listed the survey at Wikipedia:Current surveys. If you think simple majority support justifies saying a decision had been reached, I disagree, but I'll leave your version of the introduction. The standard way in which decisions are made on Wikipedia is by consensus, not by majority rule. --Michael Snow 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah! Let's not get into another heated discussion like the one I had with Duncharris. The poll has been started, people are voting, and that's all that matters. Let's just cool it. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. You learn well. --Michael Snow 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Was that sarcasm? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 02:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. It was meant to be a compliment. --Michael Snow 05:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks, then. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 16:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

E8 is a {{stub}}, Adventure Games is a {{substub}}. I can see the difference. Pjacobi 08:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it about time this vote got wrapped up? Can we just post a set time for the vote to end, say, 00:00, 11 Aug, and then take whatever action necessary? [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - ]] 00:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since there isn't a consensus, it's not clear what action should be taken. Leaving the survey open does little harm in the meantime, I think. --Michael Snow 16:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Misuse of "Stub"

Jamesday's comment was: "They are a type of stub which is deserving of highlighting for more rapid attention than the few tens of thousands of larger stubs."

It think this is the wrong approach.

First, the word "stub" suggests that the article in question is somehow deficient, that it should be expanded to become a larger article. Yet many stubs here are already longer than a corresponding article in Encyclopædia Britannica or other encyclopedias. They are marked as stubs because some editors tend to mark every short article as a stub, no matter how complete it might be. Indeed, often it is the originator who so marks it, sometimes seemingly unaware how little information is available on the person or place or thing in question. (I've seen stub articles on names of persons and places and even things mentioned which are mentioned once in all of world literature, with a plea for expansion!)

To get rid of the "few tens of thousands of larger stubs" that don't especially need attention, it seems to me a better solution is to unmark them as stubs.

Wikipedia policy should make clear that an article should be put into the stub category only when someone who knows something about the topic feels that it is not just a short article, but an especially difficient short article. There should not be special encouragement to expand a short article particularly over improving a long article.

A large number of articles marked as stubs don't need special attention compared to articles that are inaccurate, badly written, strongly POV and so on, whether they are stubs or not. It is not good when people who don't know much about a topic go to the web and quickly pull out whatever misinformation they find there to supposedly improve a short article because by someone's criteria, it is too short. I've seen too many articles that have grown from being short but accurate into a monstronsity of misinformation, sometimes one piece of misinformation at a time.

A short article that is accurate is preferrable to a longer article which misinforms.

Perhaps we should to get rid of the "stub" category altogether and replace it by a category of "Needs expansion" which might not so encourage every article that happened to be short being so marked. Not every short article especially needs expansion. Many longer articles are far more in need of expansion in respect to what they puport to cover than are many so-called stubs which are fine as they are.

I believe the real problem is this misuse of the stub category.

Jallan 14:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Marking something "stub" has lost all meaning, and needs to be fixed. supadawg 15:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Stub" has lost quite a bit of meaning, but we already have Wikipedia:Requests for page expansion, although it's not used nearly as often as the stub message. However, every short article that's no longer than a dictionary definition is in need of expansion (unless it's a disambig or something), which is why the substub marking is necessary. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]]

IMHO a good starting point would be, to have the right editors look into stubs in their field. There is some initial attempt to differentiate stubs, and perhaps {{tolkien-stub}} will help, but e.g. {{bio-stub}} is still very broad. Perhaps one of our brilliant developers can make it work, that stubs show separately in all categories. So that every category has three lists: "subcategories", "articles in this category" and "stubs in this category". -- Pjacobi 16:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Separating out stubs within categories is an interesting idea. Substubs in the category "Birmingham, England" would be huge. --Michael Snow 17:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See [[1]]. This kind of thing has been done. You don't need to mark pages as substubs or subs when such lists exist. I don't need a message on a page to tell me that the page is short. I can see that. And I don't need or want someone who knows nothing about the topic telling me that it needs expansion, when other longer articles in the same field are, in my opinon, far more in need of improvement that I can give them.

But perhaps one answer is to generate such pages of short articles regularly and provide an easy tool by which anyone can generate similar pages of aricles by categories. Then there would be no need of flagging articles as stubs or substubs by people who know nothing about their topics.

An example: substub articles are created on Dromi, Loding, and Gleipnir in February 22, 2002. They should have been blown away. What happens instead. They sit around until July 30 of this year when Eequor comes upon them and marks them as stubs, asking that users expand them and adds links. How are they to be expanded? What did the template accomplish? Jallan 01:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Considering that Dromi and Loding are now redirects to Fenris, whereas for two years there had been no significant changes, I think it's fairly clear what the templates accomplished. --Eequor 15:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nothing? At least according to the person who actually changed them into redirects. — Kate | Talk 15:56, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

It sounds as though for Jallan, the stub message contained an implicit question (whether subconscious or conscious): "How could these articles be expanded?", Jallan's answer being "they cannot; they should not even exist". A subtle effect, but still a sort of accomplishment. --Eequor 16:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it sounds like that to you, Eequor, then you aren't listening. You are hearing what you want to hear instead of what I wrote. It's so easy to mark something as a stub. We could even have it done automatically by software. Eequor (and others) write on article after article that people can help Wikipedia by expanding it even though they may know nothing about the article, without bothering check whether the information is duplicated, or is accurate. When you think about, that's almost vandalism. But, like a lot of advertising, people have become so used to those empty, meaningless stub messages that they tune them out. I can see that an article is short without a stub message. If I don't know anything about the subject of the article, I don't know whether it might or might not be especially useful to try to expand or whether it is accurate or not. If I do know something about it, I don't need a spam message telling that it should be expanded, especially when it often it shouldn't be. Stop stub spamming. And this is not directed particularly against Eequor. He's only doing exactly what many, many others are doing. It is coincidence, if there is such a thing, that those articles were marked by Eequor rather than someone else as stubs that needed expanding. There are thousands of other articles equally improperly marked, mindless stub spamming, put a spam message on every article that happens to be short, which software could do as well if there were any real value in it.

Jallan 23:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I came upon them by chance when the Fenris article appeared on the cleanup list as there were links to them in that article. I simply blew away their useless content and made them redirects to Fenris. The name of the articles are just the names of the three chains used to bind Fenris. The chains are mentioned in all of world literature only in Snorri Sturluson's Edda in his story of Fenris (and then in modern retellings and commentaries on Snorri's tale). We don't want an article on everthing named in every piece of literature. Every stub does not need expansion and every substub, despite what Mike Storm claims above, does not need expansion.

Marking them as stubs did not help me. I came upon them as part of working on the article Fenris which appeared on Cleanup when I checked the links. If those articles had been blown away when created, there would have been no loss whatsoever. But if they had been left, there would have been no great damage either. At least those short articles were accurate. The Fenris article was a mess and needed help more than did the substubs. Cleaning up the linked substubs by making them redirects was just part of the Fenris cleanup. I deal with substubs when I can, but Wikipedia is such a mess that I don't see substubs as particularly important to look at over many other tasks. They don't need special treatment. Stubs don't need special treatment. Bad articles need special treatment, whether stubs, stubstub, medium length articles, or long articles.

Jallan 01:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Shortpages isn't that much help. Of course the pages listed there should get some attention, but the judgemnet whether an article has sufficent content to escape being a stub, isn't a question of bytes alone. The {{stub}} is a very basic, but established QC mechanism. {{substub}} is an attempt to get some more differentiation, but more ambitous projects on this are in preparation, see [2].

But all this doesn't addresses the point which would greatly benefit by separate listings of stubs in all categories: The sheer number of (marked or unmarked) stubs. This workload has to be distributed in a sensible way, and using the existing category system seems to be the easiest method.

Pjacobi 12:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What was wrong with the articles on Dromi, Loding, and Gleipnir. If I click Gleipnir and then am redirected to an article on the Fenris Wolf, then I have to scroll through and read that entire article to learn what Gleipnir, the thing I was looking up, actually is. What's wrong with a short article on a subject about which there is little information? john k 19:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The little information on these chains is all in one very short account by Snorri Sturluson that is reduced in size in the Fenrisulfr article. There is not much reading involved. And one can always use one's browser to search within the page. Links to these names remain in other articles only because a full cleanup and rationalization of the Norse mythology articles is taking time. The links should be gradually eliminated. There is no reason that the names of these chains should be mentioned in any other article except the one on Fenrir, whatever it is eventually called, except possibly in some kind of list of names from Norse mythology. And that list should be a useful annotated list rather than a straight list, one that for each name would contain a short single sentence summary with a link to an appropriate article or to appropriate articles for further information.

It is annoying to jump from connected article to connected article in an encyclopedia only to come across the same information repeated again and again. One should attempt to have information structured, that is try to have the full information on any topic in one place only. (There are exceptions, such as when combining information from two entirely different viewpoints.)

But there is a lot right about a separate aricle on a subject about which there is little information when that little information is compiled from multiple sources or is connected equally to a number of other other topics or not connected logically to any other topic, even if the resultant article is a very short one.

Jallan 19:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism protection

The substub has been protected for the purpose against vandalism, since many pages use this stub, it should not be changed frequently anyway. If you feel that the template message needs to be corrected, please indicate so on this talk page or leave a note on my talk page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In line with suggestions at WP:WSS, I was going to reduce the size of the text on the template by using the "small" function . It's a minor change, but it would affect a template that's currently on about 4100 articles... Grutness|^hello? 08:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Survey again

I'd like to suggest re-opening the survey on retention or deletion of the substub template and category. All the arguments listed above still hold true, but there has been one significant change since the survey was first held - the number of substubs. When the (inconclusive) first voite was taken, there were 4000 substubs. since then, I and other members of Wikiproject stub sorting have been moving them to their respective stub subcategories, where they are far more likely to see actuion by editors, or merging or vfd'ing them, whichever seemed most fitting. There are now fewer than 200 substubs, and the number of un-subcategorised stubs has dropped considerably, probably from about 25,000 to under 4,000 - a drop of nearly 85% (exact figures are not easy to ascertain). As such, this is probably the most appropriate time to assess whether there is any need to have two separate types of stub template, stub and substub, or whether it is better to merge them into one group. Grutness|^hello? 07:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Update there are currently no substubs. Grutness|^hello? 12:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Post-TFD discussion

This template was protected because many articles used it. Now almost no articles use it, so protection is no longer necessary. Kappa 07:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree - and given that it's in the queue to be deleted, turning it into a redirect to stub for the remaining time it's here would make sense - to get people used to it not being around. Grutness...wha? 11:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The category has now also gone through CfD, and the template has been delisted from the WP:TM pages. I have no opinion on whether it should remain protected, but it should at least be redirected to {{stub}}. Joe D (t) 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's been delisted from everywhere I could find it listed, with a note saying "currently awaiting deletion", or similar. As an admin I could de-protect it and redirect it myself, but as a courtesy I've contacted AllyUnion as protector of it (1) and I'm waiting to hear back from him before doign anything about it. With any luck it'll only be a few hours. (1: "Protector of the Template" - no there's a fine title if every I heard one!) Grutness...wha? 13:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

We should delete it, not redirect. Deleting it is the only way to ween people off its use. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I agree with deleting instead of redirecting. No matter when the delete occurs some portion of the Wikipedia community will still be using {{substub}}. All a redirect does is hide any article tagged as such by placing it into Category:Stub. When the redirect goes away we are left with the problem of going back and finding all such articles that are still tagged. --Allen3 ^talk 23:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. At this point in time, a lot of people are watching for substub tagging, and taking care of them, so now is a great time to quit cold turkey. -- Netoholic @ 01:00, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Mmm. Good points. The template is now the only thing in the category and nothing links to it (other than talk pages and the like), and is ready for deletion, but I take it the talk page should be archived somehow first. Anyone know what to do as far as that is concerned? Grutness...wha? 01:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've documented the template's last content on Wikipedia:Substub. Talk page's aren't archived anywhere special, but if you're asking about the TFD discussion, it's already logged per the TFD process. -- Netoholic @ 02:11, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Unintended consequence of current appearance

If you're searching histories of articles that once were marked {{substub}}, it appears that the article has been deleted, rather than the template. Very confusing; took me a long time to figure out what was going on at Projective set, especially given that immediately after the template is removed, the article turns into a redirect. I was looking through old VfD logs to see what had happened and coming up blank. Any way to change the content of the template to make the situation clear? --Trovatore 06:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Think I've fixed it now; hope it's OK with everybody. --Trovatore 06:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've used "noinclude", which means that it won't appear in the articles when you view them. I reckon that'll be the best solution. violet/riga (t) 21:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies. It was my fault for adding the template without thinking about the appearance (I figured that {{substub}} wouldn't be on any new articles, but forgot about page histories. The main problem is that {{deletedpage}} is not really designed for use on templates (and as far as I know there is no equivalent for templates). Grutness...wha? 00:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This template is still getting added to pages occasionally. Should we put a note in the template that appears in the article saying to not include it or remove it or something? --ssd 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)