| abstract
| - Not the way it is currently used, I think. Just have a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub - there are several hundred articles that contain a stub message. It seems as if this template is either used too often (added to articles that aren't stubs in the strictest sense and/or forgotten when a stub is expanded) or makes it too easy for editors to not write anything more than just a stub in the first place ("Well, I'll just add this template and someone else might do the job..."). Anyway, this message needs to be removed from many articles in my opinion. Please keep in mind that it is possible to automatically mark links to "short pages" in a different color (preferences -> "stub display") and that it is also possible to find "short pages" via Special:Shortpages. The only task a stub message is really good for is to make possible contributors aware of the fact that an article is considered "incomplete" by someone. In these cases, however, it should be stated on the talk page what exactly might be missing. My suggestion:
* edit the template so that it contains a link to the talk page and a phrase such as: "This article is considered incomplete - please see the talk page for more information."
* Make the following an official rule: "Any stub message may be deleted from an article if the relevant talk page does not offer any further comments about possibly missing information." Any comments? -- Cid Highwind 18:18, 2005 Jan 16 (CET) I think the stub message is usefull simply to make other people aware that the article need more attention, information or whatever. The problem I have with them is that is difficult to know when a stub message can be removed. It al depends on your ST knowledge and when in doubt many will keep the message where it is. (me included) Only with small articles where you 'feel' that an article with stub msg makes no sense (I hope I do) the message will be removed. Adding some information to the message so people will use the Talk page to make clear what the article misses seems oke and might prevent the misuse of stub messages. Maby some clarification on the stub message page itself how, when and what to do with those messages ? -- Q 21:28, 16 Jan 2005 (CET) I think maybe we need to define when an article "graduates" from stub status to a normal article status. Is it when the article has a decent amount of information which would allow a person to get a good idea of the topic, or is it when the article gets to the point of saturation where no further information could really be added? Personally, I think it should only be used if there is a significant amount of information missing, as opposed to a largely complete article (extensive or even just a few sentences) that may be missing a few data points here and there. I agree that a contributor should responsible for explaining why the article is a stub; it should make future edits a lot easier. I agree with the above suggestions, but I also think we should highly encourage the use of the pages needing attention in addition or over the stub in cases where an article has useful information, but doesn't seem complete to an editor. For example, San Francisco. It's listed as a stub, even though there are plenty of references, pictures, and nothing about the subject significantly missing. It would be a better candidate for PNA if one wanted to reorganize the data into locations, people, historical data, etc. Maybe we can create a new page named something like "Pages missing minor data" or a different PNA template message that's a little less obtrusive, something like "This article has good information, but is missing minor data points. Please see pages needing attention (or the talk page) to see what needs to be added." -- SmokeDetector47 21:40, 2005 Jan 16 (CET) San Francisco is a very good example of what I'm talking about - for two reasons: First, if you take a look at the history, the stub message was inserted on 2004-08-16. Even that version of the article is not a stub. It is incomplete, but it contains information from 5 different episodes, plus additional links, plus three images. Conclusion:It was wrong to use the stub message in this case, it would have been better to use an "incomplete" message together with a comment on the talk page. Second, compare that version with the actual one. Even after about 20 edits, made by 9 contributors, the stub message is still contained in the article. Why? Because no one really knows when to remove the message. With the procedure/message suggested below, we wouldn't have this problem: the message can be removed if the issue raised on the talk page was addressed. -- Cid Highwind 16:14, 2005 Jan 20 (CET) (I wrote this in reply to Q while SmokeDetector made his contribution - seems as if we had the same idea... :) ) Another point I forgot earlier (thanks for mentioning it) is that we also have lists and messages for pages needing attention and pages needing cleanup. Perhaps the whole system of maintaining "problematic pages" needs to be overhauled, including your suggestion to clarify the whole idea. I will try this tomorrow - if you (or anyone else) have any further suggestions, feel free to comment. -- Cid Highwind 21:46, 2005 Jan 16 (CET) A fourth message similar to those three is {{factualerror}} (described on Memory Alpha:Pages needing attention). What those four have in common is that all are meant to make other readers/editors aware of the fact that a page needs attention of some sort. What they don't have in common (and I think this needs to be changed) is the necessary procedure connected to each of those messages. You have to give reasons in some cases. You have to list articles somewhere in some cases. I think this needs to be streamlined. Please read my suggestion below, but add comments in this section. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 2005 Jan 17 (CET) While this is still being discussed (Yeah, I'm an optimist... ;) ), I will start to remove stub messages from articles that in fact aren't stubs as described on Memory Alpha:Find or fix a stub (that is "one paragraph or less, 200 bytes or less). Feel free to add {{pna-incomplete}} which I just created as suggested below (but without category at the moment) if you think the article is missing something important. -- Cid Highwind 17:18, 2005 Jan 20 (CET) Well I am not a disscusion type ;) I think the suggested templates are more easier to understand than the old ones as long as they replace them instead of creating extra templates. To much of them and you don't know what to do with them. Connecting them to the talk page is a good thing, messages without accompayning talk pages can be removed. The templates themselves need to be clarified, what and how to use them, on the appropriate page -- Q 19:58, 20 Jan 2005 (CET) Speaking about the German Memory Alpha, we experienced something similair in an early state: Some articles are declared stub just in order to mark them "incomplete" or "expandable". de:Cardassia Prime for instance is no stub in a technical way but it's far from beeing "complete". At the moment we are creating a "developable article" template for this purposes. That gives us yet another state between "needing attention" (poor information / format) and "stub" (nearly no information). -- Florian K 20:29, 20 Jan 2005 (CET) Q: Thanks for answering anyway... ;) Yes, my idea was to clarify and replace the existing messages, not to create additional ones. {{cleanup}} could be replaced by {{pna-unformatted}} in most cases, for example. At the same time, the standardized name will make it easier to add new messages if they become necessary. Florian:I just found the discussion on the german Ten Forward. The "developable article" template seems to be similar to the "pna-incomplete" template I suggested, right? -- Cid Highwind 01:41, 2005 Jan 21 (CET) True, but without replacing the traditional "cleanup-", "factualerror-" and "needs attention-template". By the way: having categories with automatic generated lists is a big step ahead for keeping track of those. -- Florian K 15:07, 21 Jan 2005 (CET)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)