User:Andrewa/Requests for Stubification

This is just an idea at this stage, but feel free to edit it or comment on it in the talk page. It will be moved to the project namespace if and when I feel it's ready to try. Andrewa 00:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of the components of Wikipedia is its system of stubs. A good stub encourages the development of a good article. In the early days some editors argued strongly that stubs should be deleted on sight, but they have become an accepted part of the project.

This page exists:

• To facilitate and encourage the creation of good stubs.
• To provide an efficient and non-confrontational alternative to VfD and cleanup.

Listing something on VfD takes a lot more effort than listing it here, and that is the thin end of the wedge. It must then be examined by several voters. So it's a considerable investment in many people's time. On the other hand, it gets results.

Listing on cleanup is easy and quick, but the time delay can be considerable. There are many options, and many different problems, and many, many listings. On the other hand, it is non-confrontational, very laid back and very wiki.

This is a third alternative. It fits somewhere between the two, more focussed than cleanup and less focussed than VfD. Its intention is to take some of the pressure off cleanup and VfD by handling some of the easier cases which don't need to go there, and all within existing policy. And there are other alternatives too, see below.

Stubs

Most stubs are created from scratch, responding to a red link. Sometimes, however, an article has a problem that is best fixed by converting it to a stub. This process is called stubification.

What is a good stub?

A good stub says at a minimum:

• What the article is about - the subject.
• Why the subject is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.

If it fails to say either of these, it is not a stub but a substub, and it may be a candidate for deletion or even speedy deletion on these grounds alone, regardless of what else it may contain.

A good stub complies with Wikipedia formatting conventions. See the Wikipedia:Manual of style.

A good stub has a stub warning. This may be just the general {{stub}} notice or, better, one of the specialised stub warnings listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs.

A good stub may provide additional information that will be helpful to the writer of an article, including:

• It may be in one or more appropriate categories.
• It may provide relevant external links.

A good stub does not contain:

• Speculation.
• Questions.
• Opinions.
• Any signed comments.

If these are going to be helpful to someone writing the article, add them instead to the article's talk page.

A good stub is not the same thing as a short article. A short article is much better than a stub, it may not be complete but in a sense no article is ever complete. The difference is, in a stub the information still needed to complete the article is far more important than the information already there. In a short article, this is not so: The basic information already is there. This can be a fine line to draw, but fortunately, deciding borderline cases is not terribly important.

Finally, a good stub is not merely a placeholder. A good stub makes it more likely that an article on the subject will be written, or that it will be written sooner.

How can a stub help Wikipedia?

Writing a good stub is one way of using Wikipedia for collaboration. By writing a stub, you encourage other writers:

• You point out that the article is needed.
• You get them started writing, overcoming their writers' block.
• You provide them with a framework that already looks good on all the various skins and complies to the Wikipedia formatting conventions.

Can a stub hinder Wikipedia?

Yes, definitely.

The problem is that a stub does not create a red link. A wikilink to a stub looks just like a wikilink to an article.

When someone who has knowledge and interest in an area is reading an article, they will not follow every link. They will note red links, and may well follow some to write an article. They are especially likely to do this if they see one to a topic that is a particular interest or speciality of theirs, or which they recognise as being an important topic in the field. So the existence of a stub can quite easily mean that the expert who might otherwise have written the article does not even notice the need for one.

Similarly, a stub can waste the time of people looking for information. They will quickly recognise that following red links is a waste of time, but they have no way of finding out that a particular wikilink leads to a minimum stub except to follow it.

It is again a fine line. In general, the more people who would be competent to write an article on a topic, the better a stub will work. Conversely, stubs on extremely obscure topics are less helpful.

The process

How do I list a page for stubification?

This page works by using the category:requests for stubification.

To list a request, simply edit the page you wish to list, and add the text

[[category:requests for stubification]]

preferably at the very bottom of the article.

Please first edit the page's own talk page and say why you think it should be stubified. This is not mandatory, but it will help a great deal and increase the chance of it happening. You cannot relist an article here if the first request is refused.

(But mind you, you can always stubify the article yourself if that happens.)

What will happen then?

One of the stub team will have a look at it. There's no timescale for this, we just do it as soon as we can. One or two days is a good expectation, allowing for time zones.

We'll look at any comments you have left on the article's talk page.

If we agree with your request, we'll do it. It doesn't take long, and anyone (including anonymous editors not logged on) has the required access and authority. As part of the stubification, we'll remove the category, which removes the request. We may comment on the talk page, or we may not.

If we don't agree, then we'll also remove the request. If you have left reasons on the talk page, we'll reply there saying why. We may also take other action, such as listing the page for deletion or even speedy deletion, or making it into a redirect, or all sorts of other options.

Who are the stub team?

The stub team are Wikipedia editors who practice and encourage the writing of good stubs.

There is no list of team members. You join simply by lending a hand. You need no extra authority, any user can do it, whether logged on or not.

Why would I list an article?

Because:

• You feel that stubification is what is needed.
• You don't feel up to writing the stub yourself.

Some types of problems that might lead you to list here:

• Substubs.
• Heavily Wikipedia:POV articles.
• Jokes whose title is suitable for a real article.

Listing here is not the only answer to these problems. Even if, having read this page, you feel that a stub is the answer, you may prefer to do it yourself. It's not difficult and may even take you less time than listing the article on VfD. If you do, then perhaps you could also visit category:requests for stubification occasionally to see other stubs you can help with. Welcome to the stub team!

Alternatively, you may consider listing the article on cleanup, articles needing attention, or VfD, adding an accuracy dispute or NPOV dispute notice, or even nominating it for speedy delete. And that's good too. They are each the right answer to some problems. And for many problems, there are several right answers, any one of which will produce a good result.

Responding to stubification requests

This is suggested only for relatively experienced Wikipedians. There are some traps. One goal is to avoid confrontation, but this will not always be easy or even possible. However you do not need admin authority. You do not even need to log on, but it is recommended that you do.

If you want to help Wikipedia by responding to stubification requests, create a bookmark or link to category:Requests for Stubification and check it periodically.

The category may often be empty. That's good, it means that any requests are being cleared.

If there are requests there, select one.

Skim:

• The current article contents.
• The talk page if there is one.
• The article history to identify who listed the article for stubification.

In particular, read any comments this Wikipedian left in the talk page. Try to understand the problem they want addressed, and form an opinion as to whether stubification will be helpful in terms of:

• Will it address this problem?
• Will it improve Wikipedia?

If the answer is clearly "no" to either of these questions, then delist the article, and attempt to reply to any comments the requestor has left in the talk page. Take other action as needed, such as listing the article on cleanup or VfD.

If the answer to both questions is clearly "yes", then stubify the article, moving any removed text which you think may be useful to subsequent editors to the article's talk page. If you are unsure about either question, then leave handling this request to someone else. In any case, again take other action as appropriate, such as adding your own comments to the talk page.

Relisting

Don't. If the page has been listed for stubification once, whether by you or someone else, that's enough. Someone disagrees with you. This is true whether the page has been stubified or not.

This is a confrontational situation, and this page is not designed to handle it. This page is designed to avoid confrontation by providing an alternative. It doesn't always work.

It was worth a try, but you must now try something else.