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)''

''This page does not replace, clarify, or modify any existing policy. It is just an optional procedure that can be followed within existing policy.''

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 an article on VfD takes a lot more effort than listing it here, and that is the thin end of the wedge. The article 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, cleanup is non-confrontational, very laid back and very wiki.

This page is a third alternative. It fits somewhere between the two, more focussed than cleanup and less focussed than VfD. Like cleanup, any editor can respond to these requests, but like VfD the options are quite restricted.

The intention is to take some of the pressure off both cleanup and VfD by handling some of the easier cases which don't need to go there. And there are also other alternatives, 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.

A good stub complies with Wikipedia formatting conventions, see the Manual of style, and also those of any applicable WikiProjects.

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

A good stub often provides additional information that will be helpful to the writer of an article, including but not restricted to:


 * 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, then they belong in the article's talk page, and should be added or moved there.

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 good 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 main 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 more likely it is that a stub will be helpful. Conversely, stubs on extremely obscure topics are less likely to be helpful.

That is all assuming that the stub is well written. A poorly written stub can be confusing and discouraging to an editor who might otherwise have contributed an article.

What is a substub?
That's a good question, meaning it's not an easy one to answer. Substub once meant something with too little content to ever grow into an article, and as such was always a candidate for to speedy deletion. That was before category:substubs was created as part of a campaign to keep smaller stubs.

What substub means now is not altogether clear. See deletion policy and candidates for speedy deletion for circumstances under which substubs may still be deletable.

But for the purposes of this page it doesn't matter. This is about writing good stubs. Anything that has a good subject and is less than a good stub is a good candidate for stubification. If it's listed as a substub too, that tag will also go when it is stubified.

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

 

preferably at the very bottom of the article.

Before doing this, please edit the page's own talk page and say why you think the page should be stubified. This is not strictly mandatory, but highly and always recommended. It will help a great deal, and it will save the stub team a great deal more time than it takes you. It will increase the chance of your request being acted on, and bear in mind that you are asked not to relist an article here if the first request is refused (see below). So give it your best shot the first time.

(Mind you, there is no reason you can't still 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 to take this action. 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.

If you wish to talk to a team member, perhaps to talk about joining the team, or just to make yourself known to us, this page's talk page is a good place to start.

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 POV articles.
 * Jokes whose title is suitable for a real article.

Other options
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 well take you less time than listing the article on VfD. If you find this works for you, then plan to visit category:requests for stubification occasionally to see other stubs you can help with. Welcome to the stub team!

Or you may consider:


 * Listing the article on:
 * cleanup.
 * articles needing attention.
 * votes for deletion.
 * Adding an:
 * accuracy dispute notice.
 * NPOV dispute notice.
 * Nominating the article for speedy delete.

These 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. Create another to WikiProject Stub sorting or whichever list of stub categories or templates you find most helpful, you will need it!

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

If there are any requests there, select one of them to work on.

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 do not stubify. 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, or commenting on the article talk page or the user talk page of the person who listed the article. Assume good faith.

If you are unsure, then leave handling this request to someone else, and again take other action as appropriate, such as adding your own comments to the talk page. Be particularly wary of stubifying articles that are already the subject of some sort of conflict.

If the answer to both questions is clearly "yes", then stubify the article:
 * Write a one-sentence introductory paragraph that clearly identifies the subject, and names it in bold.
 * Write a second paragraph that contains something about why the subject is encyclopedic.
 * Expand either of these as you can.
 * Try to include a few relevant wikilinks.
 * Move any relevant external links already provided, and any others you know, to a final section headed ==External links==.
 * Move any removed text which you think may be useful to subsequent editors to the article's talk page. It is still in the history but they are unlikely to find it there.
 * Again, take other action as appropriate, such as replying to talk page comments.
 * Add a stub warning to the page. Be as specific as possible.

But before adding the stub warning, ask yourself, Does this really need to be a stub? If it already contains the main points, it is already a short article. Leave the stub warning off. If it's almost to that stage, perhaps a little more work will make it a short article. Consider doing it, you've probably done half the research already.

Articles, not stubs, are our product. The best response to a request for stubification is not a good stub but a good article. On the other hand, never feel guilty about creating a good stub. If you do it well, the article will follow.

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 was stubified on the first occasion, or not.

The discussion may now get heated, and it may not, but in any case this page is specifically not designed to handle it. This page is designed to avoid confrontation. It doesn't always work. But the rule here is, one strike, out.

It was worth a try, but you must now try something else. See other options above, or consider giving this particular issue a break. If it really matters, others will fix it. Thank you for considering this alternative, and happy editing.

Or, if you are still determined that the article should be stubified, have a go yourself. It's not difficult. See responding to stubification requests above for some guidelines.