If it's garbage delete it.
Full stop.
Deleting a pitiful little stub that contains no useful content is NOT vandalism, and I defend my right and Mav's right and anyone else's right to do it. If you have been around for more than a few WEEKS you probably know what's garbage when you see it... But most people are so afraid of being accused of vandalism that they won't touch them. It's not helping...
Having these pathetic microstubs doesn't make people write more - it just makes people think that 'oh, we have an article on 'X', so I'll look at it later...' instead of saying 'Oh! A red link to X! I'm surprised nobody's written anything yet - I'll go and make an article.'
Examples of a useless stub: 'Walhalla is a town in Australia.' 'A kookaburra is a bird.'
Examples of a useful stub: 'Walhalla is a small isolated town in north-west Victoria. At one time a thriving gold town, it is now virtually abandoned. There is only one road into Walhalla and at times it is blocked by landslips or extreme weather.' etc. 'A kookaburra is an Australian native bird. It was also known as the 'laughing jackass' because of its unusual call. It is a member of the Kingfisher family.' etc
If somebody deleted the second two, I'd be asking them what they were playing at... but the first two do not deserve to exist.
If a stub merely restates the articles title it does not deserve to exist. If a stub is part of a mutually-linked uninformative pair (eg. 'One flew over the Cuckoos Nest is a book by [[Ken Kesey]]' and 'Ken Kesey is the author of a book called '[[One flew over the Cuckoos Nest]]') then you do NOT need both of them, and the one with the least potential for expansion needs to go. If a stub exists purely for the purposes of directing you to a weblink with no explanation, it deserves to go.
Let's get on with the important stuff now... we've wasted enough time on the subject of stubs.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
If it's garbage delete it.
Full stop.
Deleting a pitiful little stub that contains no useful content is NOT vandalism, and I defend my right and Mav's right and anyone else's right to do it.
I fully sympathize with this view, Karen (though I think it'd be better to just display contentless pages as new pages, preserving their histories). To accuse anybody of vandalism over this issue is seriously overblown. Mav deserves a lot of more respect than he's been given here, and (maybe this won't be surprising) I can relate to his frustration. He's trying to do some *good*, and to maintain *standards*. To accuse him of vandalism for this behavior is a perfect example of the sort of inversion of values that this society often suffers, and is just totally, needlessly provocative and combative. Trying to maintain standards is a good thing, not a bad thing; even if you disagree with his methods, there's no reason not to do so kindly.
Larry
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 19:58, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
If it's garbage delete it.
Full stop.
Deleting a pitiful little stub that contains no useful content is NOT vandalism, and I defend my right and Mav's right and anyone else's right to do it. If you have been around for more than a few WEEKS you probably know what's garbage when you see it... But most people are so afraid of being accused of vandalism that they won't touch them. It's not helping...
Let's tone down the rhetoric. a) There are no intrinsic rights on Wikipedia; it is a benevolent dictatorship, not a civic nation-state. b) Several of the detractors of rapid deletion of weak stubs have been around for more than a few weeks.
Having these pathetic microstubs doesn't make people write more - it just makes people think that 'oh, we have an article on 'X', so I'll look at it later...' instead of saying 'Oh! A red link to X! I'm surprised nobody's written anything yet - I'll go and make an article.'
As has been evidenced by the discussion on the list, people differ on their reaction to "pathetic microstubs".
<snip examples of microstubs vs. sufficient entries>
Let's get on with the important stuff now... we've wasted enough time on the subject of stubs.
Since there is evident disagreement on this issue, the topic is an important one for the community.
Finally, rather than debating the merits of the various positions held by people (and there is a spectrum), it would make sense to discuss the technical changes that will potentially circumvent the basic sources of disagreement.
I do hope you're willing to accept that everyone (however they formulate their arguments) is attempting in good faith to express their point of view, and that each point of view has some validity.
I have not seen anyone on this issue express a position that seemed irrational.
So let's work together.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org