[WikiEN-l] What proportion of articles are stubs?

[MuZemike]

And that's another problem that I am seeing more and more of. Call it 
simply being lazy, unable to write actual prose, or a combination 
thereof; but there are so many articles that get created that have only 
one (likely unsourced) sentence, a pretty infobox, a pretty navbox, a 
table, categories, and what other (stub) templates there.

I would claim that infoboxes are the biggest culprit in that they are 
being substituted for "actual prose". If an article creator only has one 
actual sentence of prose to put forth, that is not much, and I would 
claim sheer laziness in the article creator's part.

Especially with these stubs on locations, when you cannot provide any 
more information on a location than what would normally be presented in 
an organized list or even an atlas or map, one wonders if writing about 
a location in the form of an encyclopedia article is the most efficient 
way to go.

-MuZemike

On 11/29/2010 2:50 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>  wrote:
>
>> So does clicking "Random Article" and (gasp) judging for one's own self
>> what is a stub produce a figure very different from 50%?
>
> I hit random and immediately produced a category error :-)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanarce
>
> One prose sentence! But on the other hand, a demographic table, and a
> map, and an infobox, and some statistics, and a navbox. Stub or not
> stub?
>