On 11/9/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005, at 18:39, kosebamse@gmx.net wrote:
I dont know. Despite what other people seem to think there are huge areas that are missing. A lot of people find it easier to write with something to start from. I have written a few of articles from missing encyclopaedic articles (ones I knew something about) and other people have found them and improved them. So even having more stubs is useful.
From my own experience, articles are more often created than improved
as is demonstrated by the large amounts of school stubs for example. Also, the complete dismal state on the articles on "Acidity" for example makes me think improvement is not on the top of the list of enough people. Merging for example episode articles into lists or the different languages once spoken in Egypt would provide more detailed articles and help Wikipedia in the end.
The difference lies in what one calls a stub. I call something a stub when it has a basic definition and just a tad bit more to get an article on it's way. while "Bill Clinton was the President of the United States" conveys a basic meaning, I would call it a substub and request deletion on the basis of speedy deletion criterion A1. If it went on to mention his date of birth, political party and a few biographical details it would be a stub. Too many people want to create an article NOW, rather than wait for themselves to have collected sufficient information.
--Mgm