This stub-related article is a stub. On 9/6/05, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote: -- signature

Ahhhh Elian, I see: we need your article on the stub-gnomes even in English ... well I am trying to translate it into Italian, it is fun, but really quite a difficult task as it has many of those "fine meanings" that don't need translation, but you need to re-write the whole text giving the same meanings in the other language to it (I already wrote it once and then re-wrote .... but it still lacks something) .... so I suppose the litteral translation "stub gnome" in English does not work well ... maybe we should think about Snowwhite and her "dwarfs" - so these could be come the "stub-dwarfs" ;-) So who are going to be the English writing stub-dwarfs that make some nice present to these articles "giving" a bit more information :-) Well: I am not contributing much to wikipedias (I am more concentrated on wiktionary) ... simply because my home are "languages" ;-) and this mail is about them :-) Ciao! Sabine Elisabeth Bauer wrote: ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

It seems to me that Swedish Wikipedia is quite the opposite - they have over 100,000 articles mostly because of the huge amount of substubs... -- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org

Well, the bot articles are often better than man-made stubs, and they are great as templates for further expansion. It would be a good idea to make a project at meta for collecting such data to be used by bots. -- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org

And what's with "don't kill the stub" ? Traroth --- Roger Luethi <collector(a)hellgate.ch> a écrit : ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

Paweł Dembowski wrote: I agree that this is embarrasing and should be addressed. I think that the Danish Wikipedia, with 30,000 articles, has an even higher percentage of (sub-)stubs than the Swedish one, but this is just a feeling and I have no numbers to prove this. We need a statistic for the amount of (sub-)stubs, so we can talk verifiable numbers (and set goals) instead of guestimates. How do we define that? Is the ">200 ch" count ("alternative" article count, [1]) in Erik Zachte's Wikistats a good metric? Or the percentage of articles longer than 0.5 kilobytes [2]? I think 200 characters is an OK stub, but perhaps a substub is less than 70 characters? This leaves us with the Special:Shortpages page. That page has the advantage of being instantly updated, which Wikistats is not. The Swedish Wikipedia has 421 articles (0.4% of 102K) shorter than 70 bytes and the Danish has 351 (1.1% of 31K). As a comparison, the Dutch Wikipedia has 79 (0.08% of 89K) and the Polish has 387 (0.4% of 93K). This makes the Polish look just as bad as the Swedish, since both have 0.4% of articles shorter than 70 bytes. But perhaps a substub should be defined at 50 bytes instead? Or 100 bytes or 150? [1] Article count (alternate), longer than 200 bytes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesArticlesTotalAlt.htm [2] Articles over 0.5 Kb or 500 bytes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesArticlesGt500Bytes.htm As of July 2005, [1] [2] All languages 1.6 M 62% English 595 K 73% Japanese 129 K 52% French 122 K 72% Dutch 75 K 74% 75K is more than Swedish's 68K Polish 68 K 65% Italian 47 K 76% Swedish 68 K 42% Low percentage Spanish 53 K 70% Portuguese 48 K 52% Chinese 33 K 38% Even lower percentage Hebrew 20 K 75% Norwegian 25 K 52% Finnish 24 K 64% Russian 20 K 58% Esperanto 22 K 51% Danish 20 K 45% Almost as low percentage -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Lars Aronsson wrote: Not bad :-) The recent bot articles, once one removes the html comments for the template, are just on the 0.5 threshold. Alfio

I think that the problem is how much value is placed on article count. Rather, we should place the value on size in bytes -- obviously, some languages take up more or less space than others, but it does seem to work better: some Wikis with high article counts but low amounts of content appear lower or on the same level with Wikis with low article counts but relatively high amounts of content. For example, see br.wiki, scn.wiki, li.wiki, compare them with bn.wiki, sa.wiki (much of the size of sa.wiki is artificial as well due to whole sections of the Rgveda being copied verbatim when they really belong in Wikisource), and gd.wiki. In fact, you can tell just how nasty so many of the articles on sa.wiki are by taking a look at this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/PlotDatabaseSize7.png It's the only wiki of such a size to have the vast majority of its growth in giant leaps like that, which is indicative of a bot or some other fast, low-quality article adding technique. Mark On 06/09/05, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw(a)users.sf.net> wrote: -- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE

Paweł Dembowski wrote: Yes, I think [[Special:Shortpages]] includes disambiguation pages. And also redirect pages where #redirect is spelled in lower case. I was able to remove entries from [[Special:Shortpages]] by changing the spelling to upper case #REDIRECT. So, we still need a better tool to measure the level of stubs. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se