On Monday 23 September 2002 02:32 pm, The Cunctator wrote:
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 "?"
This has already been suggested in one way or another by several people now, including me. This could in fact be married with the proposed 500 byte/character article definition cut-off whereby any page that is less than 500 characters yet meets the current criteria for automatic article detection would be marked as being a stub.
I could also see having a function where an article that is above the 500 character minimum threshold but is still obviously inadequate to human eyes to be even a minimal article on the subject, could be "voted" to be counted as a stub.
For example, a 700 character article on US history could only be a stub under most anybody's definition -- a simple list of major conflicts the US has been involed in and the most important presidents and generals would be more than 1000 characters. On the other hand, a 510 character article on some obscure Mayan god that even most present day Maya decendents are unaware of, could possibly classify as a minimal article and not a stub so long as it is well written. So I see the range of 500 to a 1000, or maybe even, 1500 bytes as the major subjective stubiness realm.
Of course, I still argue that that 95+% of encyclopedia topics objectively can't be covered even as minimal articles with fewer than 500 characters. I would further argue that it is not possible to have a decent definition using fewer than 100 characters, but that is a different thread....
It is very interesting that you mention the use of ! for denoting stubs -- a newbie posted /exactly/ that suggestion on my talk page. It is strange sometimes how the same idea is simultaneously proposed by several different people at once. I guess good ideas are infectious. :-)
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
PS, I'm still a bit mad, but I'm glad we are on rational speaking terms again Cunctator.
maveric149 wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
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 "?"
This has already been suggested in one way or another by several people now, including me. This could in fact be married with the proposed 500 byte/character article definition cut-off whereby any page that is less than 500 characters yet meets the current criteria for automatic article detection would be marked as being a stub.
I said that I would probably follow orange links a lot with this proposal. Actually, that may not be true if the threshold is as high as 500 bytes. Lower than 500 B is certainly stubby, which is why I think that 500 B is a good cutoff for estimating what an article is. But 400 B isn't something that desperately needs attention, lest we all be embarrassed when visitors look at the horrid little thing. I'd prefer a cutoff of around 100 bytes.
Here I'm just arguing over details; I'm coming to like the idea.
While I'm on the subject of details, let's make them green instead of orange. The difference between existent and nonexistent is much greater than the difference between long and short. "!" is great for the "?" style.
-- Toby
At 09:57 PM 9/23/02 -0700, you wrote:
Of course, I still argue that that 95+% of encyclopedia topics objectively can't be covered even as minimal articles with fewer than 500 characters. I would further argue that it is not possible to have a decent definition
using
fewer than 100 characters, but that is a different thread....
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I would suggest the opposite. Perhaps 5% of the hundred million or so possible entries would justify an article of more than 500 characters. That still leaves 500,000 potential articles of more than 500 characters.
Fred
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org