User:Pbsouthwood/Stubs

Most articles on Wikipedia are stubs Get stats. Historically, stub creation was to make foundations on which other editors could build, eventually becoming full articles. Those which were better included as section content in other articles tended to be merged with redirects. Wikipedia has grown and the processes matured sufficiently that there are often other immediately recognisable options to stub creation for several classes/categories of topic. Described species are inherently notable, but in many cases better included in lists in the genus article etc. Sportspeople can often be included in the articles about their clubs or the competitions in which they achieved fame. Geographical features are always within some larger geographical feature in which they could be listed

Is this a problem?
 * Probably yes. -Expand- Lots of complaints, deletion wars, Arbcom cases, RfCs relating: Get links:
 * One problem is overwhelming quality assessment, with potential to cause QA burnout and a positive feedback loop.

Is there any inherent problem with large numbers of new articles?
 * In theory, large numbers of good quality new articles is highly desirable. In practice, new articles must be checked to ensure they are good enough. this takes volunteer time, which is limited, so only a limited number od new articles can be handled by the system. A short article may be quicker to assess if it is clearly acceptable or clearly unacceptable. A longer article may take longer to assess. a borderline stub article may take longer to assess than a longer article of clearer quality.

Is the quality of an article apparent to a random reader?
 * I don't know. I suspect not.

Should we be making it clearer what level of quality control has been applied to each article?
 * Maybe? Patrolled by NPP is available, but what does it really mean? Article class is available, but also somewhat vague. ORES is dubious at best. Is it better than nothing yet? Is it getting better? Who is checking? Are there regular reports?

Why is it a problem?
 * They remain stubs for too long. Often indefinitely, some? most? are never expanded. Get stats.
 * Large numbers of stubs overwhelm the NPP. This is not fair to the volunteers checking quality.
 * a stub does not tel the reader much. It is barely an article. The same information as part of a bigger article gives context. There is less debate about notability until it is time to split.
 * Stubs are often orphaned. No other article links to them.

Is there a better way of including the content?
 * In some cases yes, merge with a higher level article with redirect. Merge several stubs on related topic to form a substantial article. If or when any of these become large enough to split, then split them as long as they are adequately sourced.

What problems does this solve?
 * They are not stubs, Wikipdia looks better.
 * The content is available to the reader
 * context is provided
 * NPP do not have to deal with so many stubs.
 * Notability issues are deferred until splitting is considered, by then there should be sufficient evidence in the references list, otherwise they simply do not get split.

Policy proposal
Do not create a stub if the content to be added will fit reasonably well into another article as a section, as part of a list, or (other options?) Create a redirect to the section or an anchor.

If someone creates a stub that is not tagged as undefined or undefined, any editor can merge it without notice, 24 hours(?) after last edited, into a suitable higher level article, leaving the stub title as a redirect, or combine several similar stubs into a new article, leaving the stub titles as redirects. Notability is not relevant for a merger into an established article, but is relevant for combination into a new article.

Such merges can be challenged, provided reasons are given that are relevant and sufficient. If the merging editor agrees or does not respond within a reasonable time (7 days?), the merge may be reverted. If the merging editor does not accept the reasons to revert, discuss as talk page RfC.

An under construction tag will be considered a commitment by the stub creator to expand the article. If there are specific reasons why it should not be merged they should be provided on the talk page. If the tag expires over time or is removed by the editor who placed it, the stub may immediately be considered for merging.

All RfD, prod and speedy rules apply.