[WikiEN-l] Featured churn

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Charles,

> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> >> I have, interestingly, been noticing it moving in exactly the opposite
> > direction; articles with a couple of paragraphs of text, a reference
> >> or two, an image or an infobox, being marked as "stubs". There's
> >> standards inflation at both ends of the rating system...
> >
> > IMHO, this kind of thing is one of Wikipedia's greatest failings. We
> > still can't even agree on a definition of things like "stub", and it
> > seems to be in everyone's interest not to. People like stuff like that
> > being subjective.
> >
> > (FWIW, I think it's reasonable to have "stub" be relative to the
> > expected content. Two paragraphs on a country would clearly be a
> > "stub". Two paragraphs on an obscure medieval scribe might be the most
> > comprehensive resource possible.)
> > 
> The stub business goes back almost forever, though. And the affection 
> for grey areas is not the dominant trend: there are people who seem to 
> have the MoS and its pickier points as bedtime reading. There has always 
> been an adequate definition of stub, which relates to the idea that the 
> article as stands has serious missing information, so is incomplete in 
> an essential way. So Steve's FWIW is correct (no, I haven't looked up to 
> see whether some genius has changed the definition of stub). I've never 
> taken much notice of what is and isn't denominated a stub.

In fact (and to return to the original topic ;)), I would argue that Steve's comprehensive two-paragraph article on an obscure-but-important mediaeval scribe could even be considered a Featured Article, if it was Pure Awesome in all other respects.

But, thanks to feature creep ...

* '''Oppose''', too short ~~~~


-- 
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
http://formonelane.net/
"Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula