I would rather the policy was not changed. Most people can see that a short but important article could be expanded. I think the articles show up on the stub list anyway for folks to work on. Basically the change means that other peoples work is to be thrown away.
I think you misundertand. He isn't talking about deleting stubs. He's talking about deleting articles with NO content at all, so there's no "work" to throw away. And I'm entirely on Toby's side--no article at all is much better than an article with no content.
At 11:13 PM 8/24/02 -0700, Lee Crocker wrote:
I would rather the policy was not changed. Most people can see that a short but important article could be expanded. I think the articles show up on the stub list anyway for folks to work on. Basically the change means that other peoples work is to be thrown away.
I think you misundertand. He isn't talking about deleting stubs. He's talking about deleting articles with NO content at all, so there's no "work" to throw away. And I'm entirely on Toby's side--no article at all is much better than an article with no content.
No, I don't misunderstand. The suggested policy change is to begin deleting short articles such as, for example [[Tucson, Arizona]] which unless it has been expanded is simply "A large city in southern [[Arizona]]. No one would care about deletion of an empty article; that can be done under the existing policy.
I should say I am one of the "guilty" parties here since I sometimes make such stubs, which at least one sysop has complained about.
My thought is that eventually someone will come along and work on say [[Tucson, Arizona]] and starting what is obviously a good topic is not a problem, but it no longer shows up in most wanted.
Fred Bauder
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
At 11:13 PM 8/24/02 -0700, Lee Crocker wrote:
I would rather the policy was not changed. Most
people can see
that a short but important article could be
expanded. I think
the articles show up on the stub list anyway for
folks to work
on. Basically the change means that other peoples
work is to be
thrown away.
I think you misundertand. He isn't talking about
deleting
stubs. He's talking about deleting articles with
NO content
at all, so there's no "work" to throw away. And
I'm entirely
on Toby's side--no article at all is much better
than an article
with no content.
No, I don't misunderstand. The suggested policy change is to begin deleting short articles such as, for example [[Tucson, Arizona]] which unless it has been expanded is simply "A large city in southern [[Arizona]]. No one would care about deletion of an empty article; that can be done under the existing policy.
No, you misunderstand. The suggestion that when someone, usually a vandal, creates a page that says "safhsakfh", or creates a blank page, that article should be deleted.
The current policy reflects the opinion that the content of such a page should be removed, but the administrative delete is unnecessary if the page would be a normal article title. The counter-argument is that such an empty page makes it appear that there is an article already written when there is one.
No oneis suggesting that stub articles be deleted.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org