On 9/23/02 4:16 PM, "Brion VIBBER" brion@pobox.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Some of the harm in deleting weak stubs:
- discourages potential contributors who see their work deleted, instead of
improved
- prevents people who find stubs to goad them to improve the entry from
doing so
- hard to quantify weakness--how "decent" must the entry be?
- hides measure of interest in the entry
We need to either amend the stated policy or change current deletion behavior; either way, we should discuss these issues first.
For a change, I agree with all that Cunc is saying here.
Um, thanks.
<snip Kendon preferring empty links to stubs, Vibbor preferring stubs to empty links>
I hope it's clear that we as a group have differing preferences. The best solution would satisfy both parties: namely, some way of denoting "insufficient" links such that they are distinguished from "full" links (as Jim McKeeth has mentioned).
To implement this we need two components: * a way of denoting "insufficient" entries (or "sub-stubs" or "micro-stubs", etc.) similar to the "watch this page" function * a way of marking such entries in the text of the entries; e.g. different link coloration or a "!" instead of a "?"