Template talk:Notstub

Please add your thoughts below. Thanks, &bull; Benc &bull; 06:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't see any benefit in this at all, since it would clutter up the page just as much as the stub template. Now, if it were exclusively reserved for the Talk page of such an article (like the todo list thingy), then it might have a future. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 11:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding this template's purpose. This is my fault for not making the description above as clear as it could be. (I've tried to do so above.) Anyway, please take a look at the template itself: it's empty! Zero clutter for the reader, small template viewable only to editors. &bull; Benc &bull; 11:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * So why use a template at all? You could just type &lt;!--notstub--&gt; Goplat 20:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur with Goplat. -- Jmabel 20:07, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Or have &lt;!-- Please note that although this article is short it is not a stub since it covers the topic in question fully..blalbalbla... see (defenition of stub)--&gt; on Template:Notstub and use to insert it into the article in question, this would then insert the boilerplate html comment which explains that although it is short it does not qualify as a stub. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   21:02, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
 * Good question and a valid concern. I've attempted to answer it in the FAQ above ("Why not use or some other message?") &bull; Benc &bull; 21:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Respectfully diagree. We should never encourage people not to make improvements to articles. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That is not what it's about, saying something is not a stub is saying that it covers the topic in question in an adaquate way, however every topic can be expanded upon. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   21:03, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
 * This is a good suggestion, but not sure of the implementation, working on the Stub Sorting WikiProject Stub sorting Project encourages tagging articles as stubs, with intial tagging generally looking at article length, the project memebrs are certainly not authorities on all topics, and this would let it be known that the article has been exaustively ersearched, but no other information is availble from the contributors. Xaosflux 04:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with category stub templates?
An interesting idea. However, I'm not *sure* if it's needed. Right now, we seem to be in the progress of dividing up stubs into such categories as geo-stub, bio-stub and hist-stub. Eventually, hopefully rather soon, being a "stub" won't be as useless as it is now. There will be separate categories for every kind of stub. As for your examples on the Pump: So I can see where you're coming from on this. At the moment, I'm not sure I have an answer. I think the best answer is probably to leave a comment on the Talk page, and I'll tell you why: Simply saying "not a stub" doesn't mean much. You have to tell people why it's not a stub. Like, for Fontus, say it was a minor god and not much is known. Or, for Setnakhte, same deal, all that is known is in the article. THEN AGAIN, such a message could discourage people from editing it if somehow new information is found. This is indeed a conundrum. However, I would say we should err on the side that promotes editing - and that would be to maintain the status quo. That is, either stub it or don't. For articles that aren't stubs, remove the message. If someone persists, say why. ... I dunno, just my rambling thoughts. Perhaps, as the stub categorization gets deeper, Fontus will be hit with myth-stub and some Romanologist will come along with a bit of new info. I don't know. Again with the rambling. I think I just contributed nothing at all. :P Because I CAN see the benefit of this, but I think the costs might outweight the benefits. Can you come up with any more articles that would be truly deserving of {notastub}? --Golbez 06:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Juturna doesn't appear to be a stub to me, and shouldn't be marked as such. I think it has all the relevant info, it has an infobox (that's a major point), it's categorized, and it is more than one paragraph.
 * Eanmund doesn't look like a stub at all.
 * Setnakhte looks a little stubby, but probably isn't. This and Fontus are the only ones I'm split on. Setnakhte looks big enough to not be a stub, but I don't know; Fontus is far too small to not be a stub, yet probably has no more information to add.


 * Ah! That's the first I've heard of Template:hist-stub et al. I like this solution much better than a generalized "notstub" template. These custom stub messages are poorly advertized, though. They're not mentioned at all on Perfect stub article &mdash; in fact, the only places they're mentioned (that I could find) is User:Angela/useful stuff and Template:stubs!


 * The only category stub templates I've encountered previously have been Template:Poke-stub (ugh) and Template:Critic-stub, a stub for the Critic articles (like we need more than one), encountered on WP:TFD, accompanied with appropriately snide commentary about such granular category stub templates.


 * I'm withdrawing my suggestion for using Template:notstub in favor of increasing awareness of category stub messages. Perhaps Category stubs should be created and linked to? &bull; Benc &bull; 20:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see that Docu had created Stub categories on 9 September 2004. Unfortunately, it is still largely an orphan page &mdash; I'll get busy de-orphaning it. &bull; Benc &bull; 01:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stable examples?
The explanatory text mentions four "prime examples", namely, the articles Juturna, Fontus, Eanmund, and Setnakhte. Of these, now the first two are stub-marked, while the fourth is developed to a considerably longer article. Only Eanmund remains as an appropriate example. If possible, perhaps someone could try to find more permanent examples?

Of course, we never have a guarantee that new development will not occur and thus will not motivate longer articles. Seemingly, the present article Setnakhte was prolonged as a result of new archaeological finds the last years. Still... JoergenB (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)