On 12/8/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What exactly is an "eternal stub", anyway? I thought by definition a stub was able to be expanded.
An eternal stub is one that is eternally able to be expanded... but no-one ever does.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I was referring to anons creating these substubs before the anon article creation was blocked. Eternal stubs can refer to either the type Andrew mentioned or substubs which some people say are expandable, but actually aren't.
Articles at least need a solid base on which to build: a definition and slightly more info. If no one is willing to submit that, I don't see the point in keeping it.
Mgm
Your theories on eternal stubs are interesting. I'll leave it at that. But anyway, if "Articles for creation" is wasting a lot of time and not much good is coming out of it, then we should get rid of it, regardless of whether or not we turn back on new article creation for users that aren't logged in.
Anthony