|From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)ualberta.ca> |Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:49:45 -0600 | |At 06:11 PM 27/08/02 +0100, Gareth Owen wrote: |>Axel Boldt <axel(a)uni-paderborn.de> writes: |> |> > I can't see any possible use for stubs. |> |>I agree with everything Axel wrote in the above message. |>Stubs are embarrassing. | |Hear hear! We say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and then we go and |have articles like [[Robert Braden]] and [[Ununpentium]] which would get |laughed out of any half-decent dictionary as practically useless. | |I think Wikipedia would be better served by having edit links pointing to |an empty page, rather than misleading people into thinking there's some |kind of useful information there. | Robert Braden's mother must be so proud. However, I stuck up for [[Ununennium]] in votes for deletion the other day and even added a bit to it and I think it was useful information. There will be an [[Ununpentium]] some day, for a microsecond, and eventually it will pick up a better name, but in the meantime, it seems to me that to understand the transuranic elements at all, you have to understand that some of them don't exist yet. But I'd have to say that my article on [[Ununennium]] is much better than the one pn [[Ununpentium]]. I did wonder, while writing it, how much is known about a non-existent element before it exists, and suggested in my Summary that someone more knowledgeable should take a look at it. Tom Parmenter Ortolan88

Bryan Derksen wrote: Maybe each article could be assigned points from 0 (doesn't exist), 1 (very short stub), 2 (20 words or a single comma), up to 5 (brilliant prose). Then each user could set a threshold so only links pointing to 3 or more are rendered as links. This would allow stubs for people who are involved in writing articles while hiding them from people who just want to browse. (This is an idea from the design of Slashdot.) -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) tel +46-70-7891609 http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/