Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Template:Substub

Introduction to substubs

I created this type of stub because I saw a reference to it on Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and thought that it needed to become official. Mike Storm 02:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that this should include deletion in the message. If they qualify for deletion, the speedy deletion tag seems more appropriate. This seems to be for things which could be deletable but which are about topics which merit expansion rather than deletion. Jamesday 11:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The message about the "quality of information" in Wikipedia was added because someone brought up a very good point in Wikipedia talk:substub about how people who found a substub with a search engine (very likely) would see unworthwhile information and therefore form a bad opinion of Wikipedia. Please don't let this turn into an edit war. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk)]] 14:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your threat of edit war is an inappropriate first step in a dispute over wording. If you are going to put official sounding notices on pages, you should achieve consensus on their wording and necessity. If necessary, we can put up a request for comments. I ask you to consider the response of a contributor, new to Wikipedia, who gets this "substub" notice slapped onto his first contribution. Is it welcoming? Is it kind, or is it rude? Is it necessary? Next I ask you to consider the response of someone who comes to Wikipedia to look up information and encounters this current notice: "This article is a substub. A substub is even smaller than a normal stub, and does not reflect well on the quality of information in Wikipedia. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Does the message itself reflect well on Wikipedia? I think not. Is it useful to someone not already familiar with Wikipedia jargon? I think not. The message also presents your point of view ("does not reflect well on the quality of information in Wikipedia") without attributing it, and without consideration of other points of view (e.g. "a short article is one step on the way to a fuller article, and is the way by which Wikipedia becomes more complete.)" Neither point of view needs to be there. And while you may find utility in having a category for both stubs and substubs (probably because "stub" is dreadfully overused that it has no residual utility, I see little need for a different message for the two: anyone who needs to distinguish between them can do so by looking at the category.- Nunh-huh 02:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't believe in stubs much. They are too easy to create and are too often created by people who don't know anything about the topic (or they would produce a longer article). Accordingly they are quite often inaccurate. Very short stubs not needed at all. Better the user find no reference and search in Google than be annoyed by finding one of these. I've again and again made redirects out of short stubs which sometimes give information on a name found once only in one single work in all of human literature (other than a few references in comments on that work). Presumably the person who created them actually didn't know anything about the name, was just rushing through some handbook and adding reworded information, too often wrongly reworded. Such stubs are worse than nothing.

Don't encourage stubs of any kind. Blow them away. Yes ... they can become good articles. But it is just as easy for someone who knows something about a topic to start fresh than to use many stubs. If there is some concern about politeness, which Nunh-huh makes a good point about, then have a standard and polite template put on the user's talk page when short-short items are removed.

Perhaps what is needed instead is a template for very short articles that supplies no message but which counteracts a stub message. Some users stick stub notices on articles which are no shorter than many articles in standard paper encyclopedias and can stand quite well at their current size. Expanding such an article may be possible and even desirable, as with any article, but is often not at all necessary. Such a template could be placed by people who know something about the substance of the article to indicate that a short article as it stands is fine and should not display a stub message, including any stub message that someone adds without checking that it was marked as a short no-stub article. See for example Shamgar, which essentially relates everything known about the character mentioned in two verses in the Bible. One could expand this with bits of scholarly speculation, discussions of the etymology of the name, and so forth. Someone who has access to further information would be quite welcome to add that information, as with any article, regardless of size. But as it stands, the article requires no expansion. I could remove the stub notice, but someone would be likely to add it again.

My POV is that people should not be encouraged to create stubs. I could create a hundreds stubs a day based on individual POV books.

Stubs themselves are somewhat controversial. I don't believe there is any consensus on use of a sub-stub template. A sub-stub article should be deleted. That is my POV.

Jallan 17:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Nunh-huh's message: First: "threat of edit war"? I was trying to guard against one. Maybe it was a little presumptuous, but I really don't feel like having one right now. Second: you should check out Wikipedia talk:substub if you feel that I am not doing this without consensus. The "quality of information" message was not my idea, and nor is it my opinion, I assure you. The "official-sounding" notices were just my efforts to make sure that I got the word out about substubs in a timely manner. Heck, substubs weren't even my idea. Please don't accuse me of being POV without doing your research in the other discussion forums. Third: your alternate message, "a short article is one step..." is certainly a great idea, and a much better wording, but a little long for a template message. I'll try to incorporate it into the template, unless you do it first. Fourth: if you want to discuss the existence of substubs, then please do it on Wikipedia talk:substub. This talk page is about the template message. Fifth: must you be so rude in your posts? Have I personally attacked you in some way as to provoke you into posting what some would call a flame? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 19:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My concern was for the offputting wording of the template message. The current one seems fine. I have no strong feelings on the existence of substubs; I don't think the classification very useful, but that's fine. And if others don't object to the injection of self-referential meta-content into the content area of the wikipedia, I'm surprised, but that's ok, too. As for "fifth": I see nothing "rude" in my message, though it is certainly "cool" in tone, mostly because of your perceived edit war threat. If you didn't mean the threat, that's nice. - Nunh-huh 19:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Jallan's message: If you don't support stubs at all, then I suggest that you try to delete the {{stub}} message and see what kind of reaction you get. Furthermore, as I explained to Nunh-huh, this talk page is about the template message. If you want to talk about substubs themselves, then do that on Wikipedia talk:substub. I believe that I have refuted all of your main arguments against substubs there, and I have no desire to repeat myself. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 19:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"If you don't support stubs at all ..." Why the conditional? If I were totally opposed to any stubs at all, I would have said so. And even if that were my position, which it is not, I would not be so silly as to unilaterally remove a commonly used template without consensus. I believe stubs should be generally discouraged, which is not the same thing as being prohibited, far more useful would be a distinction between a poor stub and a good but short article.

You have not refuted my arguments on any page that I can see. Nor do I see a consensus. I see arguments for and against and a complaint that you skewed the discussion by not including an oppose section. I see a suggestion that you should not be surprised if articles marked as substubs are speedily deleted. I also recognize that adding a feature doesn't require as much consensus as removing or changing a feature. No-one is compelled to use added features.

As to posting here, I suggest adding to Nunh-huh's note at the pump the suggestion that all discussion should appear at Wikipedia talk:substub or indicating that template formatting alone should be discusssed here and anything else at Wikipedia talk:substub, whichever you prefer.

Jallan 21:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories

Oughtn't the category name be plural? That's the standard form for categories. The category contains "articles which are substubs", not "articles which are substub". The latter is ungrammatical. --Eequor 16:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The message is not POV, do you really think that there's a substub anywhere that reflects well on the info in Wikipedia? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 18:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Making a statement about how something appears is POV. Saying these articles reflect poorly upon Wikipedia is an open invitation for speedy deletion. --Eequor 18:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... good point. You're right. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 23:43, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Backgrounds

I made the substub boilerplate message have an orange background because substubs need that extra attention and loving care, and this gets them noticed. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 18:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to a color that's a bit easier on the eyes. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 19:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Orange was an ugly color, as it clashes with blue and purple. Teal isn't much better, it makes the external link difficult to see. How do the following look to you?

• #ffcc99

This article is a substub, but may eventually become a full article. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• #ffff99

This article is a substub, but may eventually become a full article. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• #ff99cc

This article is a substub, but may eventually become a full article. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

My preference would be for something close to the first two. The external link is difficult to see against pink as well. --Eequor 19:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A nice effect of the un-<div>'d message (for me, at least) was that it all fit on one line. With the narrower space given to it, it now takes two. Minor, but something to consider. --Eequor 19:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I like the first one, the orange color, best. I changed my mind - I like the bottom one, the reddish-pink color, best. I have no problem seeing the external link on that one. By the way, what do you mean, "un-<div>'d"? As far as I can tell, the message is still a div, and it's all on one line. If it's on two lines, then you can edit the width: thingy until it displays properly on your computer. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Er, I guess it always was a <div>, wasn't it? I meant before the width was specified. But it's not really important anyway. =) --Eequor 20:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No background color, please. So-called substubs are already so small it's hard to see the article; no need to overwhelm it with a message so overdramatic that you never notice the article at all. --Michael Snow 22:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second what Michael Snow said. The stub message should be small as to not be larger than the article it marks, and not be quite so blazingly obnoxious as these hot colors. I'd rather post it on speedy delete than put this kind of ugly banner on it. --ssd 05:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, no background color is needed. In fact, the message should not even be bold because it is so easy to see on such short pages. —siroχo 00:37, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Since the idea of categorizing substubs separately from stubs is controversial (see Wikipedia talk:Substub), I think we need to see how people feel about the continued use of this template. I'm constructing a survey below. --Michael Snow 19:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Notes on wording

"The first step to becoming a full article" doesn't seem quite right to me. This isn't the first step for most other articles, so, in particular, the first step isn't really correct. Also, in my opinion, the reader oughtn't be reminded that the article can't get any worse. --Eequor 22:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Survey

Is it worthwhile to keep the {{substub}} template? Or should we redirect it to the {{stub}} template?

It is debatable whether this has been decided already. Please see Wikipedia talk:Substub#Substub support (and Wikipedia talk:Substub#Substub opposition below).

Pros and cons

Arguments for keeping

• Substubs need extra attention that can be generated by using the template.
• Substubs need a unique notice indicating that somebody has interest in the article, despite its poor quality (discouraging speedy deletions).
• By similarity with categories, substubs should use the most specific classification appropriate.

(In response to the arguments for redirecting):

• You can use the stub message, but isn't it better to be more specific and draw more attention to the fact that this particular stub is really small?
• When using the substub message, it adds more characters than the stub template. This actually makes it useful, because then in lists such as Wikipedia:Shortpages, we can differentiate the substubs which have template message from the ones that don't.
• Category:Stub isn't too large to be useful -- I, for one, use it frequently.
• The substub template message tempts people to expand upon it because (eventually, if substubs become an accepted policy) they will realize that while stubs are in need of attention, substubs are in need of extreme attention.
• Of course there is a way to differentiate between a stub and a substub, which becomes quite clear after reading a few articles on Wikipedia:Shortpages: stubs are short articles, and substubs are so short that they are no longer than a dictionary definition.
• Substubs are indeed a type of stub. However, the argument that we would need both templates for one article is ridiculous, because we can do one or both of these things: 1) include both Category:Stub and Category:Substubs in the template message, and/or 2) make Category:Substubs a subcategory of Category:Stub.
• How would a substub message make people want to delete an article? Not having the message would tempt them to delete it.
• It's quite obvious what a substub is, even to newbies. They see sub-, which means small, and then they see -stub, which also means small. What's the conclusion? Substubs are really small. Newbies will want an explanation before their articles are redirected, and not doing so might drive new users away.

Arguments for redirecting

• Substubs are just a type of stub. The stub template can be used on substubs just like all other stubs.
• Adding a substub template adds more characters than the stub template. Therefore, it makes it harder to pick out the shortest stubs when organizing by character count, as is done in Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is one of the shortest articles.
• Category:Stub is already too large to be useful. With continued use Category:Substubs will be too.
• A substub message does not make people any more likely to expand and improve an article than the existing stub message.
• There is no sensible way to differentiate a substub from a "normal" stub.
• Since substubs are a type of stub, shouldn't they be included in both categories? But to do that, we would need to use both templates on all substubs.
• Using a substub message may tempt some people to speedily delete articles when this would not be appropriate.
• Newbies have a good chance of intuitively understanding what a "stub" is. They are much less likely to immediately understand when they see something called a "substub".

Voting (see also Wikipedia talk:Substub#Vote)

Keep

Substubs should continue to be distinct from stubs.

1. Eequor 20:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 21:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

Substubs should not be distinct from stubs.

1. Michael Snow 21:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. older≠wiser 21:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. —Kate | Talk 21:38, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
4. Jallan 22:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Netoholic 23:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments

It should be noted that Category:Substubs organizes substubs. --Eequor 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Since substubs are a type of stub, shouldn't they be included in both categories? But to do that, we would need to use both templates on all substubs.

This statement contains its own refutation. --Eequor 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Newbies have a good chance of intuitively understanding what a "stub" is. They are less likely to immediately understand when they see something called a "substub".

However, both Template:Stub and Template:Substub link to informative descriptions. --Eequor 21:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but can you count on people to click to read those descriptions? --Michael Snow 21:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It also can't be counted on that they will do anything to help, regardless of what we call the article. At worst they'll take no interest and just move on without contributing.

To me, the substub message shows more hopefulness than the stub message. Maybe newbies will be encouraged by that. --Eequor 21:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yay! More debate! Just so everyone notices, I posted a few responses to the arguments in the Arguments for redirecting section in the Arguments for keeping section. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 21:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow, I find it somewhat curious that, with the exception of Mike Storm, you seem not to have contacted anyone who indicated their support for substubs. In fact, all the users whom you contacted with a "form letter" on their talk pages (Cyrius, Duncharris, Jallan, John Kenney, Kate, Maximus Rex, and MyRedDice) have indicated, in some way, their opposition to substubs.

While such a beginning is possibly deserved given the beginnings of the poll on Wikipedia talk:Substub, it's rather hypocritical behavior in light of your comment at Wikipedia talk:Substub#Survey. --Eequor 22:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why I should be obligated to rally support for a position I oppose. The survey is designed to give both sides a fair hearing. Note that I also posted a general announcement to the Village Pump. Supporters of substubs can recruit like-minded people just like I did. --Michael Snow 22:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. That was also done somewhat later. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to "retaliate" for the way the cited poll was conducted. In fact, I hadn't intended for this survey to start quite so soon, but you went ahead and started voting in it, so I figured I would work with what you did in the wiki spirit. I had left a message for Mike on his talk page asking him to contribute to the arguments for keeping the template, because I felt I wouldn't be able to do his case justice. My plan was to get both sets of arguments ready before actually starting, which is why I didn't vote yet myself while I was designing the survey. --Michael Snow 22:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Substubs

Since you participated in the discussion on this subject, could you express your opinion on what to do with the substub template at Template talk:Substub? Thanks. --Michael Snow 21:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Presumably this notice would have sufficed for everyone else as well. It seems to have done well enough for the others who agree with you, even without making a case for your position. The message was neutral, but the delivery was not. --Eequor 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So the way I see it, I am trying to contribute to a process that can treat both points of view fairly. I would have liked a little more preparation, as suggested by Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, but I still think we can have a fair survey. Naturally, that requires that both sides promote their positions as best they know how.

May I also suggest that accusations of "hypocritical behavior" are fairly strong language, and many people might take offense at such things? Please remember to assume good faith. --Michael Snow 22:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had been assuming good faith on your part until you posted an identical notice to seven people who seemed likely to support your position and none who opposed you except for the author. It would have been fairly easy to send the message to everyone else as well, but you did not. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your change to the intro: first, from appearances, the majority is in favor of substubs. Second, your actions have voided any justification you might have had for arguing the merits of the previous survey. --Eequor 22:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could indicate why there is anything at all wrong with the version: Some related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Substub, but did not reach a consensus. Are you seriously contending that a consensus was reached? Unless that really is your position, I see no reason to state that It is debatable whether this has been decided already, which is the language I changed. I will readily concede that a small majority favored substubs in the previous survey, but as I've noted, all but one of those were added while the option to oppose was not offered at all. And since the way I see it, the supporters of substubs have in both cases started these surveys on their way prematurely, I feel perfectly justified in arguing the merits of the previous survey. --Michael Snow 22:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should a new survey be started, then, giving equal time and voice to both parties? I've personally decided to be neutral in regards to substubs. supadawg 22:54, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully not; I still think this one is quite fair, in spite of the premature start. I would like a more neutrally oriented introduction, however. --Michael Snow 22:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You did have a chance for neutrality. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did say it was debatable whether a decision had been reached. Majority support seems a sufficient indication that it had been, however.

As the creator of the survey, you had the responsibility to see that it was undertaken in a proper manner. You might have set a starting time, or asked others not to vote yet, or removed my vote, or any number of things. Instead you contacted everyone who agreed with you. You have no justifications. --Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I've tried to illustrate, I was trying to construct the survey in a collaborative process. I can now see that I should have put up an obvious notice that it was not open yet. I figured removing a vote would be taken as offensive. I did not contact anyone until after you had voted and listed the survey at Wikipedia:Current surveys. If you think simple majority support justifies saying a decision had been reached, I disagree, but I'll leave your version of the introduction. The standard way in which decisions are made on Wikipedia is by consensus, not by majority rule. --Michael Snow 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah! Let's not get into another heated discussion like the one I had with Duncharris. The poll has been started, people are voting, and that's all that matters. Let's just cool it. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. You learn well. --Michael Snow 23:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

It is proposed that the votes of users who have contributed in any way to Wikipedia:Substub, Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub, Wikipedia:The perfect stub article, Template:Substub, or Template:Stub, or their talk pages, prior to 21:00 UTC on August 9, 2004, shall be considered invalid in the above survey. Please see Wikipedia talk:Substub and the comments above for justifications of this.

Support

Only users with no prior involvement may vote in the above poll, even if they had not voted at Wikipedia talk:Substub.

1. Eequor 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Anybody may vote in the above poll, even if they may be voting a second time.

1. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 23:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) - why are we having a poll on how to have a poll? Everyone's opinion counts.
2. Why would we ban them from voting. Extrememly stupid Insensitive ;) and undemocratic — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments

It seems a little unnecessary to count votes twice, is all. --Eequor 23:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Count votes twice? --Michael Snow 23:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)