Template talk:Stub

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

my idea for a stub icon, i.e. using a picture of a ticket stub (with the $0 price tag as sign that this is non-commercial): Stub.png (This idea might look cooler if it was done by someone who could make this look like a real ticket stub maybe.)--RatCreature 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I somehow missed this, sorry! I think it looks like a ticket stub but I'm not sure whether this idea works in a wiki context. Ticket stubs by definition were once whole and then someone ripped a piece off. A wiki stub on the other hand starts out unfinished but the goal is to make it more complete. Maybe something that moves in the same direction from incomplete to complete would fit better, for example an unfinished puzzle or a painting with the canvas half empty and the brush visibly at work... --Doro 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

more notices?

I'm thinking we might want to have some more specific notices to put on articles that need work instead of putting EVERYTHING in the stub category. What do people think of an "expand this section" tag that would go on a longer page with one or two sections that could use more detail? Wikipedia has oodles of notices to indicate what kind of editing is needed.--æthel 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

On defining stubs

I've noticed a few editors recently taking stub notices off articles I'd definitely still consider stubs. Could we hash out here what people think of as a stub, so we're all working to the same definition?

My back-of-the-envelope view is that a non-stub article should at minimum have a paragraph of description of fannish aspects of the subject, rather than just canon description or lists of internal/external links. Thoughts, anyone? Espresso Addict 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably the one causing problems as my definition appears to be different than others. I'll stop and work on something else. No worries. --Mrs. Potato Head 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what others are using, which is why I started this discussion! But I do think we need -- somehow -- to capture those articles that still need a lot of work (eg all canon, all links, missing key stuff), even if they're not stubs, otherwise they'll slip between the cracks. There again, there are so many stubs at the moment that I doubt anyone is working on them systematicaly, so it might not make any difference! Espresso Addict 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
To me, a stub is basically a place-holder, the barest of bare, a name and not much else. But if stub is the term we have to use to get more info, then I suppose that label should be left on more of them than I would choose if I were using my head-def of the term. I think that we're all bumping up against the wish that ALL pages had more information, because there is always more to add, and that it is hard to know where to draw any lines. I think there is a fear that by taking off the stub, fans will think the page is finished or won't be enticed into adding more -- there's a truth to that, I guess, but the entire wiki, by that definition, is a stub. --Mrs. Potato Head 13:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm divided. On the one hand, I would like to be able to agree with your definition (except some trope/glossary/newsletter comm pages etc, where a brief definition/examples of useage etc often seems sufficient to me to be not-a-stub. I mean, what is there to say about most lj comms? I can never think of anything. But I digress). But, there are approximately one trillion stubs! It is just not useful as a category if a third of the pages in the wiki are in it, so I think imma throw in with MPH on this. We could do with a needs-more-info template, but a stub should be the most basic. Like, Animorphs is definitely totally a stub. Castiel is probably not a stub, Darker Than BLACK is kind of on the line for me, because as you pointed out there is no fandom info there, but OTH there is quite a lot of other material. I would've said Young Wizards was still stublike also (but I'll see what I can add to it now.) But all in all I think I would err on removing stub notices opposed to leaving them, when in doubt, because: one trillion. MegR 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there are only 1715 stubs out of 20,962 articles, so just over 8%. I'd totally agree that something very brief works fine for some types of pages, eg lj comms, many zines. I think on pages for fandoms & characters we should be careful to measure the fannish content, not just the content, because that's the point of Fanlore (as opposed to say Wikipedia). If something has a few sentences on the fandom, then I'd probably agree that it's not a stub, but many of these need the canon information balancing out with a lot more fandom -- but then that's a different template. Espresso Addict 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with MPHs definition (for example Adam Lambert/Kris Allen, definitely a stub; Bloodswap, not so much). If it can stand on its own in a way that makes kind of sense, I wouldn't call it stub, even if it's very short. We have notices for "needs more fandom" and "examples needed" and "citation needed" and we could probably make more for other specific things that are still missing. (It's only 8% because we mostly don't use the stub template on zine pages and most of our pages are zine pages. If you look at the stub/not stub ratio for non-zine pages, the number looks much worse.) --Doro 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I was, obviously, exaggerating for effect, but that is actually many fewer than I thought! I don't think it is something that a precise definition can easily be put on, but I agree, we should try and be more careful with fandoms and character pages and I will endeavour to be so. The thing is, I sometimes look up comms and archives and so on for fandoms/characters I don't know anything about, but I can't add any detailed fannish content. And I suppose I find it a bit frustrating to feel I've added quite a lot but! it is still all stubby. MegR 15:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I cannot believe that Adam/Kris is a stub. It's not even my fandom but I feel a wrongness in the force.MegR 15:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
People often assume that content on Fanlore materializes on its own by the power of a collective squee and that no actual people are needed to add that content. The bigger the fandom, the more likely the assumption. :P --Doro 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be awesome if it did. MegR 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I want that AU! (What do you mean that's not how it works.)--Tiyire 16:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be interesting to get a rough stub/non-stub ratio for non-zine pages. If it is more like the third guesstimate, then perhaps we do need to prune them down to a minimum. I've been adding other info needed templates when I remove the stub template; I wonder if it's worth advertising the other templates on the stub category page, as I suspect many editors don't know they exist. Espresso Addict 16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be useful to better differentiate between pages with no content (like Animorphs) and pages with little fannish content or with large sections missing. For the latter aethel already made a draft notice: Template:Expand_section, feedback welcome. Then we could make a list of those similar notices and advertise them better.--Tiyire 16:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
My major problem with Aethel's template is that it's for a specific section. A lot of the articles which badly need expansion but aren't stubs by MPH's definition need several sections expanding, and (in my experience on en-Wikipedia) pages begin to look like template mosaics. (Also I'd suggest the template title were harmonised with the others, ie ExpandSection.) Espresso Addict 18:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
So we should have two templates, "stub" and "not quite a stub but there are still large parts missing"? In addition to "examples wanted" and "needs more fandom." Hm, that might work. --Tiyire 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that might work? Call it Expand, perhaps? Espresso Addict 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:ExpandArticle - is that clear enough? --Tiyire 21:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking good! I'd suggest 'This article or section needs expansion.' perhaps? Espresso Addict 13:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Done.--Tiyire 13:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)