On 3/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I've already explained what the point is, sometimes I find it convenient to throw down a framework before I start digging into sources. If I'm "not supposed to do it" and yet it still results in good articles being written, perhaps there's something wrong with having a rule against it (assuming we actually do)? And I certainly have no intention of changing my approach just because you personally don't prefer to do it that way.
What do you mean by framework? A framework shouldn't contain anything that needs sourcing - to me a framework of an article would be just a list of section headings.
A framework is a general summary of facts, perhaps akin to the lead section of a full-fledged article. The details can come in at a later point, and these details obviously require sources (unless the editor has somehow memorised an inhuman amount of information).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that (assuming [[Britney Spears]] was a redlink), I'd have to write "Britney Spears is a famous singer.<ref>some pop culture magazine just to prove I'm not making up a commonly-known fact</ref>" rather than "Britney Spears is a famous singer. {{stub}}"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting a stub-class article without directly referring to sources. It obviously shouldn't be encouraged, but it shouldn't be discouraged either. That's how we got the beginnings of most of our articles - very few of us, I'm sure, ever actually dug up half a dozen books to write a short stub. The referencing work should be saved for the meat of the article, not for a stub summarising the general facts about the article's subject.
Johnleemk