Wikivoyage talk:Stub articles/Archive 2004–22

For reference, the old "stubs needing attention" page can now be found at Project:Stub articles/Stubs needing attention

How long does an article need to be to lose 'stub' status?
Moved from Project:Travellers' pub.

Self-explanatory, really. I was thinking this because articles that are really long (such as Prague, Bratislava and Boston) have stub messages on them. Stub messages, surely, would be more suitable if the article was just 'Whatever is a city in Wherever.'

Do stub messages stay until all the template headings have been filled? It seems a bit odd to have a stub message on a 30k+ article. Would a message along the lines of 'This article is in need of development' be more suitable? (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 13:19, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)


 * It's not a matter of length, but completeness. A destination guide is a stub until it would make a useful travel guide. Until then, it's incomplete, i.e., a stub. A useful travel guide should at least have Get in, Get around, Eat, and Sleep stuff available. See Project:Stub articles for more info. If you disagree with the definition of stubs that's there, which we've used for more than a year, please comment on Project:Stub articles. --(WT-en) Evan 16:43, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)


 * I don't disagree with the policy, I was saying that there are a lot of articles that surely shouldn't still have stub messages on them, Ireland and the aforementioned articles being examples. I was looking for some clarification as to when to remove the messages. The paragraph on removing stub messages is a little vague. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 17:02, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Positions of Stub disclaimers
I know that we have traditionally put disclaimers at the bottom of articles. However, now that we are adding a lot of blank templates, I feel that the notice is wrongly positioned.

I recently saw a stub notice positioned below the introductory paragraph at the bottom of section 0. This meant it appeared above the table of contents but did not interfere too much with the text. However the reader was informed that the page was incomplete. And I thought it was an interesing alternative placement.

The more I think about it, why not have them in both positions and take the top one out once things are added to the template and the bottom one out once the template is full. Or should we have another disclaimer that says the article is ok as it stands but it is obvious more could be added? - might solve the question of when to remove the stub disclaimer.

My question is: Where should the stub disclamer go? -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:32, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * 1) At the bottom of the article? (Status Quo)
 * 2) Below the introductory section, just before the first heading?
 * 3) Both - but take the top one out when the template starts to fill and the bottom one out when it is full.
 * 4) Have two different notices, one for a stub, and one for adding more info.

Adding Stubs to Stubs needing attention
It doesn't quite say it in the article but I think the following message is implicit when making stubs:
 * Please don't forget to add those new stub pages to Stubs needing attention. That way we can find them again after they fall off the recent changes list, and do not have to troll through all the new pages looking for them.

I think all articles with messages on them should also be listed on Stubs needing attention. That way if someone removes the message from the article it can still be found. Any reason why this should not be done? -- (WT-en) Huttite 16:39, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

Substubs and skeletons
Currently "stub" can mean an article with virtually no content ("Foo is in Bar" plus maybe a template), or it can mean an almost-complete article that is missing a Learn section or a second Sleep listing. I'd like to see new terms (templates) developed to distinguish between the two, like Wikipedia's "substub" and "stub", but better reflecting the different structure of Wikivoyage guides. Howzabout "Skeleton" and "incomplete"? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:18, 6 May 2005 (EDT)


 * Quite true! It would make finding out which article needs work much easier. (WV-en) Felix 15:54, 7 May 2005 (GMT)


 * I notice that Wikipedia has started to use section stubs for incomplete sections of an article. For me, I think we could have a couple of index pages, one for useable and another for substantial articles. Perhaps even one for excellent! articles. I would avoid incomplete because no wiki article is ever complete. Skeleton has merits, but isn't that really a stub? At this time we have a large Project:Stubs needing attention that is starting to show where we have, and do not have, a lot of stub articles. But I seem to be one of the few adding articles to the page. To have multiple pages would become a maintenance nightmare.


 * Instead, I use the short pages and oldest pages to find articles that need work. There is little point editing/researching an article that is being actively changed and updated - someone else might add the information before you can do the research. The new pages are normally edited to ensure they are formatted right - though they should be added to Project:Stubs needing attention too. Then if you are looking for things to edit, the short pages and oldest pages are probably good places to start. The short pages are probably a good way for finding stubs - any page under 1000 characters is probably one, or else it is a disambiguation page. The oldest pages are also fruitful hunting because these pages have not been updated recently and may need some TLC to make them attractive so readers will want to contribute to them. (Country factbook pages are in this category.) -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:58, 17 Jun 2005 (EDT)

This meta-article needs revision
This meta-article needs revision because we now have more options to use. We should talk about migrating stub articles to Outline articles once they have templates added and are linked to their country with an introductory paragraph. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:32, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * I've given a shot at rewriting the first paragraph. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 14:34, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * I've revised the whole article to reflect current policies and procedures. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:27, 11 July 2006 (EDT)