Tardis:Stub: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(→‎Story stub: rejigging in the light of the presence of template:wales crew)
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
A '''stub''' is a fundamentally incomplete article, often — but not always — only a few sentences in length. A stub is so obviously missing information that it practically screams for information to be added to it.
A '''stub''' is a fundamentally incomplete article, often — but not always — only a few sentences in length. A stub is so obviously missing information that it is almost calling out for information to be added to it.


It is important to stress that a stub is not ''only'' a short article. Many articles on this wiki are about minor subjects, of which not more than a few sentences can be written. And some longer articles may be classed as stubs if they're obviously lacking major points.
It is important to stress that a stub is not ''only'' a short article. Many articles on this wiki are about minor subjects, of which not more than a few sentences can be written. And some longer articles may be classed as stubs if they're obviously lacking major points.


Stubs are identified through the placement of [[:category:stub templates|stub templates]] on pages which lack enough information to be considered proper articles. Because these templates automatically add pages to various lists of articles needing improvement, editors must exercise sound judgment when deciding to use these templates. If stub templates are used indiscriminately — for instance, placed on articles ''just because they are short'' — the lists will become useless to those editors who choose to use them to prioritize their work on [[Tardis:about|this wiki]].
Stubs are identified through the placement of [[:category:stub templates|stub templates]] on pages which lack enough information to be considered proper articles.  


==Types of stub==
Because these templates automatically add pages to various categories and lists that indicate articles needing improvement, editors must exercise sound judgement when deciding to use these templates. If stub templates are used indiscriminately — for instance, placed on articles ''just because they are short'' — these categories and lists will become useless to those editors who choose to use them to prioritise their work on [[Tardis:about|this wiki]].
===Character stub===
Articles about characters are often the hardest to judge in terms of their "stubbiness". Beyond the major televised characters like [[the Doctor]], his [[companion]]s, and perhaps the main guest stars, most characters require special effort to notice. Characters who appear in a medium ''other'' than television are particularly hard for most editors to assess, because they're more expensive in terms of pure cost and time required to research.


Additionally, the bulk of characters on this wiki are in fact minor ones. For most character articles, two or three sentences is the ''maximum'' that can be written. A good example is the unseen character of [[H. P. Wilson]] from the televised episode ''[[Rose (TV story)|Rose]]''. While one could argue that the article could be stylistically tweaked, or that a word or two might be added or subtracted, there's never going to be any more information forthcoming on him.
== Types of stub ==
=== Character stub ===
Articles about characters are often the hardest to judge in terms of their "stubbiness".  


A good rule of thumb is that you should assume that articles about characters are ''not'' stubs. Only when you are '''certain''' that major details are missing should you mark it as a stub.
Many characters covered on this wiki may be minor ones, with fleeting appearances or description. With only so much that can be written about these characters based on the [[T:VS|sources available]].  


The question then becomes what constitutes "major details". This where an editor's personal judgment comes into play. Imagine an article about a person who met the Doctor, had a romanic relationship with another character and was key to an effort to defeat an enemy. If the article didn't at least ''mention'' all three of these things, it's probably a stub. But if the article could merely use greater amplification about those points, it's probably not a stub.
In general, you should assume that articles about characters are ''not'' stubs. Only when you are '''certain''' that '''major''' details are missing should you mark it as a [[Template:Character stub|stub]].


===Astronomical object stub===
The question then becomes what constitutes "major details". This where an editor's personal judgment comes into play.  
The overwhelming majority of articles about stars, planets, asteroids and other astronomical phenomena are going to be short. This is because, aside from planets on which the Doctor has an adventure, these objects are only incidentally mentioned in most stories. Even planets that the Doctor has visited generally are not described in any great detail. We don't know all that much about the planet of [[Frontios]], for instance, despite the fact that the [[Frontios (TV story)|the Fifth Doctor had a significant adventure there]]. We know relatively more about the culture and people of Frontios than we do about any of its geologic or astronomic details.


However, it is precisely the articles about planets that have served as the backdrop for the Doctor's adventures which harbor the greatest potential for "stubiness". If such an article fails to even '''mention''' the known inhabitants of that world, it is immediately a stub. If it doesn't characterize '''any''' known geography vital to the progress of a story — such as major cities, land masses, bodies of water, geologic formations, forests, or the like — it's also a stub. But if it merely fails to give as much detail as is possible, it is likely not a stub.
:Imagine an article about a person who met the Doctor, had a romantic relationship with another character and was key to an effort to defeat an enemy. If the article didn't at least ''mention'' all three of these things, it's probably a stub. But if the article could merely use greater amplification about those points, it's probably not a stub.
===Story stub===
 
Story stubs are fairly easily identified, although the sheer size of a "blank" or "placeholding" story page can fool the eye into believing there's more information on a page than there actually is. Whether a television, audio, comic, prose, or stage play story, they all require the same basic level of information to avoid being a stub.
=== Astronomical object stub ===
The overwhelming majority of articles about stars, planets, asteroids and other astronomical phenomena are going to be very often short.
 
This is because, aside from planets which feature prominently in a [[T:VS|source]] these objects may only be mentioned incidentally, with only a name or a location being mentioned.
 
These fleeting mentions are ''not'' stubs, they are articles with all the limited information accessible through the sources available.
 
To determine if an astronomincal object article is a stub, it is better to question if it is lacking coverage of something significant – such as major cities, land masses, bodies of water, geologic formations, forests, or the like, then it is a stub. However if it merely fails to give as much detail as is possible, it is likely not a stub.
 
=== Species stub ===
Species in the ''Doctor Who'' universe are described in differing ways and detail depending on the writer's or creator's standards or reasonings.
 
Sometimes a lot is revealed about a species' culture, physiognomy and technology; sometimes only a little bit is explored.
Trying to define when a species article is a stub is therefore somewhat tricky.
 
Begin with the [[Tardis:Preloadable formats|preloadable format]] for the article.  


All these pages begin with a pre-defined format, that automatically places a series of subeheads onto a page. This format can be set on a page by pushing a button above the editing window when starting a new page. Subheads like plot, timeline, continuity and the like appear on the page. You can see what this structure is like by going to almost any story page; ''[[Fury from the Deep]]'' is as good as any to examine the basic format of a story page. When the format is added to the page, the subheads all appear with the phrase ''to be added'' underneath them. This phrase persists until information is added. Thus, a story page can be immediately deemed a stub if one of two conditions is present:
For species this provides an infobox, '''Biology''' and '''History''' subheadings. Both these are good things to begin with, and to fill out to change a page from a stub into an article.
*There is no automatic formatting present.
*Most of the subheads are still empty


However, a story page can still be a stub, if ''certain'' things remain unfilled.  
However there are many species articles which may not follow these subheadings, but are nevertheless ''not'' stubs.
Sometimes, the known details about a species do not readily fit into this structure. It's rarely important to a story, for instance, what the life cycle of an alien is. Nor does every species have readily-identifiable biology.
Only when there is information about a species which the article ''does not'' include would the article be considered a stub.


*'''In particular, a story without a plot section, or with one that has very few plot details included, is automatically a stub.''' The main point of a story page is to give the plot of a story, so its absence means the page is missing its essential element.
A species article should also strive to do more than just report the encounters that species had with the Doctor, Sarah Jane Smith, K9 or Torchwood. It should attempt to provide physical and cultural details about the race. The fact that an article is devoid of these elements, however, should not be taken as an automatic sign it is a stub. Just as there are many astronomical objects which are only incidentally mentioned, there are many species who are given short shrift by writers.
*If the [[:Category:infoboxes|infobox]] is missing or substantially empty, an article can also be considered a stub — although this information is easily added.
*For stories which are performed, like televised and audio stories, the complete absence of cast information can also reduce a page to stub status.  
*The lack of audience reception and home video availability can also be a barrier to a stub graduating to full article status.
*Some attention to crew information is also necessary for performed stories, though the advent of [[BBC Wales]] productions, with their extremely long credit rolls, has made this more challenging. Nevertheless, the template [[:template:Wales crew|Wales crew]] has sped up the process of data entry, and should be on every page having to do with a story of modern ''Doctor Who''. It can be used on other modern programmes, like ''The Sarah Jane Adventures'' and ''Torchwood'', as well.  For earlier stories, or stories in other media, at least the main department heads — such as [[producer]], [[director]], [[director of photography]], [[executive producer]], [[writer]], [[production designer]], [[visual effect]]s — or equivalent positions for the medium concerned — should be included for the article to avoid being classed a stub.  


Generally, though, the lack of information in ''other'' subheads is not, in itself, enough to judge a page a stub. For instance, not all stories actually have that much in the way of '''continuity''' with other stories. Some stories, especially short stories and stage plays, are quite independent of others. Some make no '''references''' to popular culture.
Nevertheless, there are some things which ''every'' species articles — except those about very incidental species — should include to avoid being classed a stub:


===Real world stub===
* An instance of [[:template:Infobox Species]] filled out as completely as possible, preferably with an in-universe picture at 250px.
* Some sort of physical description, including any known facts about the biology of the species
* A description of the known history of the species in the Doctor Who universe. Ideally, this would include at least a sentence about ''every'' appearance, but to avoid stubbiness, it should at least include every appearance in the medium of origin.
Even if all three of these things are well-included in a species article, though, it still might be classed as a stub, if the gap between what is known from stories and what is written in the article is deemed too large.
 
=== Real world stub ===
Real world stubs are the most varied kind of stub, because they can be applied to an article about ''anything'' in the [[:category:Real world|real world super-category]], aside from stories. Production personnel, games, companies, merchandise and many other things can be slapped with the real world stub tag.
Real world stubs are the most varied kind of stub, because they can be applied to an article about ''anything'' in the [[:category:Real world|real world super-category]], aside from stories. Production personnel, games, companies, merchandise and many other things can be slapped with the real world stub tag.
=====People=====
Sadly, most articles about production personnel are currently stubs on this wiki. The vast majority merely give the stories on which a person worked, or might additionally tell the roles an actor played. This is the very minimum a real world personnel article requires to avoid deletion, but is the very ''definition'' of a real world stub.


To avoid being a stub, a personnel article should give the birth (and, if applicable, death) dates of the individual. They should give at least a broadly complete accounting of that person's work in the [[Whoniverse]]. They should also have some kind of coverage of the person's career outside their ''Doctor Who''-related work. There should also be at least some coverage of their non-Whoniverse collaborations with other veterans of the Whoniverse. For example, an article about [[Matt Smith]] should mention the fact that he co-starred with [[Billie Piper]] on ''The Ruby in the Smoke'' and ''Diaries of a Call Girl''. It might also include information about an individual's personal life, if those details are relevant to the ''Doctor Who'' universe. For instance, an article about [[Peter Davison]] should mention that [[Georgia Moffett]] is his daughter, or one about [[Steven Moffat]] should point out that [[Sue Vertue]] is his wife. (Care, however, should be taken not to include merely ''rumored'' or informal relationships without citation. For instance, it would be relevant to [[Katy Manning]]'s page that she was romantically attracted to [[David Troughton]], but only because she can be cited as giving this information on the DVD releases of ''[[The Three Doctors]]'' and ''[[The Curse of Peladon]]''.) Finally, as a matter of formatting, all personnel pages should have a link to that person's IMdB page.
==== Story stub ====
Story stubs are fairly easily identified, although the sheer size of a "blank" or "placeholding" story page can fool the eye into believing there's more information on a page than there actually is. Whether a television, audio, comic, prose, or stage play story, they all require the same basic level of information to avoid being a stub.


As always, a stub is wholly or ''almost'' entirely missing some of these details. It's not something that is just missing a few of these details.
All pages begin with a [[Tardis:Preloadable formats|preloadable formats]] which automatically places a series of sub-headings and infobox on the article page.
=====Merchandise=====
 
An article about a line of merchandise should explain what the merchandise is and give an accounting of the various specific products within that range. Any article which is ''just'' a listing of the items (unless the article's title is prefaced with the words '''List of''' or '''Gallery of''') is a stub. Likewise an article which just has a few sentences that characterize the product is also a stub. An article need not list ''every single'' product in th range, nor must it give all the details in the range to be a full article. But it must at least attempt to give both a general range description ''and'' provide specific examples.
You can see what this structure is like by going to almost any story page; {{cs|The Book of the Still (novel)}} is as good as any to examine the basic format of a story page.
 
When the format is added to the page, the subheadings all appear with the phrase ''to be added'' underneath them. This phrase persists until information is added. Thus, a story page can be immediately deemed a stub if one of two conditions is present:
* There is no automatic formatting present.
* Most of the subheads are still empty
 
However, a story page can still be a stub, if ''certain'' things remain unfilled.  


Things that are important to develop a full merchandise article include, but are not limited to:
* '''In particular, a story without a plot section, or with one that has very few plot details included, is automatically a stub.''' One of the main points of a story page is to give the plot of a story, so its absence means the page is missing its essential element.
*History of the range. When did it start? When did it end?
* If the [[:Category:infoboxes|infobox]] is missing or substantially empty, an article can also be considered a stub — although this information is easily added.
*The physical characteristics of the members of that range. What are their dimensions? What materials were they made out of? If printed, how many pages did they typically contain? If audio or video, what was their general runtime and format?
* For stories which are performed, like televised and audio stories, the complete absence of cast information can also reduce a page to stub status.  
*Intended age range of the product's consumers.
* The lack of audience reception and home video availability can also be a barrier to a stub graduating to full article status.  
*Relation to other ranges. How does the range under discussion compare to others? Is it a "young person's version", as with [[Quick Reads]] versus the [[New Series Adventures]]? Is it for more mature audiences, as with the [[Virgin New Adventures]] versus the [[Target novelisation]]s?
* Some attention to crew information is also necessary for performed stories, though the advent of [[BBC Wales]] productions, with their extremely long credit rolls, has made this more challenging.  
*Country of origin. While most ''Doctor Who'' products have been historically British, this is no longer the case. It would be important to the any of the [[IDW Publishing]] comic ranges to note their American origin, for instance.
*Any evidence of the relative commercial success of the range.
*If about the company that makes the range, as opposed to the range itself, some details about the company might be important. How [[Polystyle]]s got and lost the license for ''Doctor Who'' comics will be important to ensuring that that article is not a stub. Likewise, in the same way that an article about a product range will need to include examples of the individual members of that range, a company article should incorporate details about the various ranges that it produced. The [[Polystyle]] article, for instance, should mention ''[[TV Comic]]'', ''[[TV Action]]'' and the various holiday issues and annual of those publications. Company articles should endeavor to also mention competitors, to give a sense of the marketplace in which they operated. The [[Polystyle]] article should include some mention of [[City Magazines]] and [[Marvel Comics UK]], for example.
*If about a product that has incidental relation to ''Doctor Who'' some details about the broader nature of the product might be required. For instance some context about what the ''[[Radio Times]]' is would be pertinent to explaining the ''RT''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s importance to ''Doctor Who''. ''
*Graphics. Articles about merchandise should strive to include pictures of the company/range logo. They should also try to include pictorial representations of the product. However, they need not include a picture of ''every'' product in that range. Such full catalogues are usually spun off into a [[:category:Galleries|separate "Gallery of" article]].


Note that an article doesn't have to answer ''all'' these questions to avoid being classed as a stub. But a proper article will attempt to give a sort of context for the range that a stub lacks.
Generally, though, the lack of information in ''other'' subheadings is not, in itself, enough to judge a page a stub. For instance, some stories do not actually have that much in the way of '''continuity''' with other stories. Some stories, especially short stories and stage plays, are quite independent of others. Some make almost no '''references''' to popular culture.


=====Behind-the-scenes jobs and terminology=====
==== People ====
Articles which focus on defining [[:category:production team titles|behind-the-scenes jobs]] like "[[best boy]]" can also be stubs. These are usually seen as pages which merely give a list of all the people who have held that title. Such pages are actually just lists, not proper articles. A "job" page should endeavor to describe what the job is. Lists of the people holding those jobs are incidental, and often should be spun out into a page, like the as-yet-unwritten, [[List of best boys]].
Unfortunately many of the articles about production personnel are currently [[Template:Real world stub|stubs]] on this wiki. The vast majority merely give the stories on which a person worked, or might additionally inform of the roles an actor played. This is the very minimum a real world personnel article requires to avoid deletion, but is the very ''definition'' of a real world stub.


Exactly how much information would be required to transfer a page from a "stub" to an "article" is another area where the editor's judgment is key. Generally, if you read an article about a job title, and you still don't really understand what the position is, or you know that the definition is lacking fundamental details, then it's a stub.
To avoid being a stub, a personnel article should give the birth (and, if applicable, death) dates of the individual. They should give at least a broadly complete accounting of that person's work in relation to their ''Doctor Who'' (or related/connected) work.


The same is true of articles that attempt to define [[:category:terminology|production terminology]], like [[CSO]].
They should also have some kind of coverage of the person's career outside their ''Doctor Who''-related works. There should also be at least some coverage of their non-Whoniverse collaborations with other veterans of the Whoniverse. For example, an article about [[Matt Smith]] should mention the fact that he co-starred with [[Billie Piper]] on ''The Ruby in the Smoke'' and ''Diaries of a Call Girl''. It might also include information about an individual's personal life, if those details are relevant to the ''Doctor Who'' universe. For instance, an article about [[Peter Davison]] should mention that [[Georgia Moffett]] is his daughter, or one about [[Steven Moffat]] should point out that [[Sue Vertue]] is his wife. (Care, however, should be taken not to include merely ''rumoured'' or informal relationships without citation. For instance, it would be relevant to [[Katy Manning]]'s page that she was romantically attracted to [[David Troughton]], but only because she can be cited as giving this information on the DVD releases of {{cs|The Three Doctors (TV story)}} and {{cs|The Curse of Peladon (TV story)}}.) Finally, as a matter of formatting, all personnel pages should have a link to that person's IMdB page.


===Species stub===
As always, a stub is wholly or ''almost'' entirely missing some of these details. It's not something that is just missing a few of these details.
Species in the ''Doctor Who'' universe are described by writers to highly differing standards. Sometimes we know a lot about a species' culture, physiognomy and technology; sometimes we only know a bit about what they look like and when they interacted with the Doctor. Trying to define when a species article is a stub is therefore somewhat tricky.


A good place to start is the preloaded topic outline provided when starting a new article. It includes an infobox, and suggests a few main categories that a species artilce should have: biology, life cycle, technology, and history. All of these are good things to try to include in species articles. However, there are many well-written species articles which do not include information about all these topics. Indeed, many species articles do not closely conform to this topic outline. Sometimes, the known details about a species do not readily fit into this pre-loaded structure. It's rarely important to a ''Doctor Who'' story, for instance, what the life cycle of an alien is. Nor does every species have readily-identifiable technology. It is only when there actually is information about these topics, and the article fails to include it, that a species article might be considered a stub.
==== Merchandise ====
An article about a line of merchandise should explain what the merchandise is and give an accounting of the various specific products within that range. Any article which is ''just'' a listing of the items (unless the article's title is prefaced with the words '''List of''' or '''Gallery of''') is a stub.  


Each case is quite different. For instance, if the article on [[Cybermen]] had ''absolutely no'' information about [[Cybermat]]s of the basic nature of [[cyber-conversion]], then it could well be considered a stub, as both were major pieces of Cyber-technology. Likewise, if it failed to mention any societal structure, such the fucntional role of [[Cyber-Controller]]s and [[Cyber-Leader]]s, then it could well be considered a stub. Meanwhile the [[Optera]] don't have a lot in the way of technology, but we ''are'' able to say rather a lot about their culture. Failing to at least mention their linguistic system could potentially make the article a stub.
Likewise an article which just has a few sentences that characterise the product is also a stub. An article need not list ''every single'' product in the range, nor must it give all the details in the range to be a full article. But it must at least attempt to give both a general range description ''and'' provide specific examples.


Generally, too, a species article should be considered a stub if it fails to even ''mention'' information from each major appearance in the medium in which the species originated. For instance, if you were writing an article about the [[Robot Yeti]], the article would definitely be a stub if it gave details from ''[[The Abominable Snowmen]]'' but not ''[[The Web of Fear]]''. The article would be incomplete, but not a stub, if it ignored the minor appearance in ''[[The Five Doctors]]''. Nor would it be classed a stub simply because it failed to give details of the appearance in [[MA]]: ''[[Downtime]]''.
An article doesn't have cover ''everything'' about the item of merchandise, but likewise it can't gloss over the particuars of the history or detail, if it does it would be classed as a stub. But a proper article should attempt to give some context for the range, if it lacks this it would be a stub.


A species article should also strive to do more than just report the encounters that species had with the Doctor, Sarah Jane, K9 or Torchwood. It should attempt to provide physical and cultural details about the race. The fact that an article is devoid of these elements, however, should not be taken as an automatic sign it is a stub. Just as there are many astronomical objects which are only incidentally mentioned, there are many species who are given short shrift by writers.
==== Real world jobs and terminology ====
Articles which focus on defining [[:category:production team titles|real world "behind-the-scenes" jobs]] like "[[best boy]]" can also be stubs. These are usually seen as pages which merely give a list of all the people who have held that title. Such pages are actually just lists, not proper articles. A "job" page should endeavour to describe what the job is. Lists of the people holding those jobs are incidental, and often should be spun out into a page, like the as-yet-unwritten, [[List of best boys]].


Nevertheless, there are some things which ''every'' species articles — except those about very incidental species — should include to avoid being classed a stub:
Exactly how much information would be required to transfer a page from a "stub" to an "article" is another area where the editor's judgment is key. Generally, if you read an article about a job title, and you still don't really understand what the position is, or you know that the definition is lacking fundamental details, then the article is a stub.


* An instance of [[:template:Infobox Species]] filled out as completely as possible, preferably with an in-universe picture st 250px.
The same is true of articles that attempt to define [[:category:terminology|production terminology]], like [[CSO]].
* Some sort of physical description, including any known facts about the biology of the species
* A description of the known history of the species in the Whoniverse. Ideally, this would include at least a sentence about ''every'' appearance, but to avoid stubbiness, it should at least include every appearance in the medium of origin.
Even if all three of these things are well-included in a species article, though, it still might be classed as a stub, if the gap between what is known from stories and what is written in the article is deemed too large.


===General stub===
=== General stub ===
A general stub is one that defies categorization into one of the more specific stub types described above. As with all stubs, though, the basic rule of thumb is that it's not a stub just because it's short. For instance, the article on ''[[The Mystery of Edwin Drood]]'', will never be terribly bigger than it is at the moment, unless a new story is written that centers on the novel. Thus, though brief, it is not a stub.
A general stub is one that defies categorisation into one of the more specific stub types. As with all stubs, though, the basic rule of thumb is that it's not a stub just because it's short.  


It's only a general stub when:
An article is only a general stub when:
*it can't be classed as any more specific kind of stub
* it can't be classed as any more specific kind of stub
*it's missing substantial information from appearances not yet cited in the article
* it's missing substantial information from appearances not yet cited in the article
*what is included is so lacking in information that it actually gives a false impression about the topic at hand
* what is included is so lacking in information that it actually gives a false impression about the topic at hand


====Section stub====
==== Section stub ====
If only a section of an article is needing expanding, then a section stub should be used within that section.
If only a section of an article is needing expanding, then a section stub should be used within that section.


==How to mark an article as a stub==
== How to mark an article as a stub ==
Articles are marked as stubs through the use of pre-created templates. They are included on pages simply by typing their name inside two curly braces. For instance:
Articles are marked as stubs through the use of pre-created templates. They are included on pages simply by typing their name inside two curly braces. For instance:
<pre>{{real world stub}}</pre>
<pre>{{real world stub}}</pre>
will place the real world stub tag on a page, and automatically send the page to a [[:Category:Real World Stub|list of real world stubs]].
will place the real world stub tag on a page, and automatically send the page to a [[:Category:Real World Stub|list of real world stubs]].


Exactly where on the page you put the tag is a matter of some variability. It's important that the template be readily apparent to readers, so that they'll understand the article is in a formative stage. Thus on an extremely short article, it probably doesn't matter all that much. But for an article which extends down a bit on the page because of the use of preloaded topic outlines — as with articles about individual stories — it's important to put the tag near the top. Due to the way that stub tags interact with infoboxes, the best place for it on a page with an infobox is immediately between the closing curly brace of the infobox and the first word of the article proper, '''without any spaces or line breaks'''. Thus:
Due to the way that stub tags interact with infoboxes, the best place for it on a page with an infobox is immediately between the closing curly brace of the infobox and the first word of the article proper, '''without any spaces or line breaks'''. Thus:


<pre>infobox}}{{TV stub}}'''''The Eleventh Hour''''' was an episode of . . . </pre>
<pre>infobox}}{{TV stub}}'''''The Eleventh Hour''''' was an episode of . . . </pre>


==Stub templates==
This was it is easily located, and removed when the article's status has improved and the stub can be removed.
A list of available stub templates can be found at [[:category:stub templates]].
 
If the article does not have an infobox if can simply be the first thing on the article.
But it's important that for all articles it should be somewhere near the top.
 
== Stub templates ==
A list of available stub templates can be found at [[Tardis:stub templates]].


==List of stubs==
== List of stubs ==
The master listing of all stubs can be found at [[:category:stub]]. From there, stubs are further divided by type.
The master listing of all stubs can be found at [[:category:stubs]]. From there, stubs are further divided by type.
[[Category:Manual of style]]
[[Category:The Hub]]

Latest revision as of 06:03, 20 April 2024

A stub is a fundamentally incomplete article, often — but not always — only a few sentences in length. A stub is so obviously missing information that it is almost calling out for information to be added to it.

It is important to stress that a stub is not only a short article. Many articles on this wiki are about minor subjects, of which not more than a few sentences can be written. And some longer articles may be classed as stubs if they're obviously lacking major points.

Stubs are identified through the placement of stub templates on pages which lack enough information to be considered proper articles.

Because these templates automatically add pages to various categories and lists that indicate articles needing improvement, editors must exercise sound judgement when deciding to use these templates. If stub templates are used indiscriminately — for instance, placed on articles just because they are short — these categories and lists will become useless to those editors who choose to use them to prioritise their work on this wiki.

Types of stub

Character stub

Articles about characters are often the hardest to judge in terms of their "stubbiness".

Many characters covered on this wiki may be minor ones, with fleeting appearances or description. With only so much that can be written about these characters based on the sources available.

In general, you should assume that articles about characters are not stubs. Only when you are certain that major details are missing should you mark it as a stub.

The question then becomes what constitutes "major details". This where an editor's personal judgment comes into play.

Imagine an article about a person who met the Doctor, had a romantic relationship with another character and was key to an effort to defeat an enemy. If the article didn't at least mention all three of these things, it's probably a stub. But if the article could merely use greater amplification about those points, it's probably not a stub.

Astronomical object stub

The overwhelming majority of articles about stars, planets, asteroids and other astronomical phenomena are going to be very often short.

This is because, aside from planets which feature prominently in a source these objects may only be mentioned incidentally, with only a name or a location being mentioned.

These fleeting mentions are not stubs, they are articles with all the limited information accessible through the sources available.

To determine if an astronomincal object article is a stub, it is better to question if it is lacking coverage of something significant – such as major cities, land masses, bodies of water, geologic formations, forests, or the like, then it is a stub. However if it merely fails to give as much detail as is possible, it is likely not a stub.

Species stub

Species in the Doctor Who universe are described in differing ways and detail depending on the writer's or creator's standards or reasonings.

Sometimes a lot is revealed about a species' culture, physiognomy and technology; sometimes only a little bit is explored. Trying to define when a species article is a stub is therefore somewhat tricky.

Begin with the preloadable format for the article.

For species this provides an infobox, Biology and History subheadings. Both these are good things to begin with, and to fill out to change a page from a stub into an article.

However there are many species articles which may not follow these subheadings, but are nevertheless not stubs. Sometimes, the known details about a species do not readily fit into this structure. It's rarely important to a story, for instance, what the life cycle of an alien is. Nor does every species have readily-identifiable biology. Only when there is information about a species which the article does not include would the article be considered a stub.

A species article should also strive to do more than just report the encounters that species had with the Doctor, Sarah Jane Smith, K9 or Torchwood. It should attempt to provide physical and cultural details about the race. The fact that an article is devoid of these elements, however, should not be taken as an automatic sign it is a stub. Just as there are many astronomical objects which are only incidentally mentioned, there are many species who are given short shrift by writers.

Nevertheless, there are some things which every species articles — except those about very incidental species — should include to avoid being classed a stub:

  • An instance of template:Infobox Species filled out as completely as possible, preferably with an in-universe picture at 250px.
  • Some sort of physical description, including any known facts about the biology of the species
  • A description of the known history of the species in the Doctor Who universe. Ideally, this would include at least a sentence about every appearance, but to avoid stubbiness, it should at least include every appearance in the medium of origin.

Even if all three of these things are well-included in a species article, though, it still might be classed as a stub, if the gap between what is known from stories and what is written in the article is deemed too large.

Real world stub

Real world stubs are the most varied kind of stub, because they can be applied to an article about anything in the real world super-category, aside from stories. Production personnel, games, companies, merchandise and many other things can be slapped with the real world stub tag.

Story stub

Story stubs are fairly easily identified, although the sheer size of a "blank" or "placeholding" story page can fool the eye into believing there's more information on a page than there actually is. Whether a television, audio, comic, prose, or stage play story, they all require the same basic level of information to avoid being a stub.

All pages begin with a preloadable formats which automatically places a series of sub-headings and infobox on the article page.

You can see what this structure is like by going to almost any story page; The Book of the Still [+]Loading...["The Book of the Still (novel)"] is as good as any to examine the basic format of a story page.

When the format is added to the page, the subheadings all appear with the phrase to be added underneath them. This phrase persists until information is added. Thus, a story page can be immediately deemed a stub if one of two conditions is present:

  • There is no automatic formatting present.
  • Most of the subheads are still empty

However, a story page can still be a stub, if certain things remain unfilled.

  • In particular, a story without a plot section, or with one that has very few plot details included, is automatically a stub. One of the main points of a story page is to give the plot of a story, so its absence means the page is missing its essential element.
  • If the infobox is missing or substantially empty, an article can also be considered a stub — although this information is easily added.
  • For stories which are performed, like televised and audio stories, the complete absence of cast information can also reduce a page to stub status.
  • The lack of audience reception and home video availability can also be a barrier to a stub graduating to full article status.
  • Some attention to crew information is also necessary for performed stories, though the advent of BBC Wales productions, with their extremely long credit rolls, has made this more challenging.

Generally, though, the lack of information in other subheadings is not, in itself, enough to judge a page a stub. For instance, some stories do not actually have that much in the way of continuity with other stories. Some stories, especially short stories and stage plays, are quite independent of others. Some make almost no references to popular culture.

People

Unfortunately many of the articles about production personnel are currently stubs on this wiki. The vast majority merely give the stories on which a person worked, or might additionally inform of the roles an actor played. This is the very minimum a real world personnel article requires to avoid deletion, but is the very definition of a real world stub.

To avoid being a stub, a personnel article should give the birth (and, if applicable, death) dates of the individual. They should give at least a broadly complete accounting of that person's work in relation to their Doctor Who (or related/connected) work.

They should also have some kind of coverage of the person's career outside their Doctor Who-related works. There should also be at least some coverage of their non-Whoniverse collaborations with other veterans of the Whoniverse. For example, an article about Matt Smith should mention the fact that he co-starred with Billie Piper on The Ruby in the Smoke and Diaries of a Call Girl. It might also include information about an individual's personal life, if those details are relevant to the Doctor Who universe. For instance, an article about Peter Davison should mention that Georgia Moffett is his daughter, or one about Steven Moffat should point out that Sue Vertue is his wife. (Care, however, should be taken not to include merely rumoured or informal relationships without citation. For instance, it would be relevant to Katy Manning's page that she was romantically attracted to David Troughton, but only because she can be cited as giving this information on the DVD releases of The Three Doctors [+]Loading...["The Three Doctors (TV story)"] and The Curse of Peladon [+]Loading...["The Curse of Peladon (TV story)"].) Finally, as a matter of formatting, all personnel pages should have a link to that person's IMdB page.

As always, a stub is wholly or almost entirely missing some of these details. It's not something that is just missing a few of these details.

Merchandise

An article about a line of merchandise should explain what the merchandise is and give an accounting of the various specific products within that range. Any article which is just a listing of the items (unless the article's title is prefaced with the words List of or Gallery of) is a stub.

Likewise an article which just has a few sentences that characterise the product is also a stub. An article need not list every single product in the range, nor must it give all the details in the range to be a full article. But it must at least attempt to give both a general range description and provide specific examples.

An article doesn't have cover everything about the item of merchandise, but likewise it can't gloss over the particuars of the history or detail, if it does it would be classed as a stub. But a proper article should attempt to give some context for the range, if it lacks this it would be a stub.

Real world jobs and terminology

Articles which focus on defining real world "behind-the-scenes" jobs like "best boy" can also be stubs. These are usually seen as pages which merely give a list of all the people who have held that title. Such pages are actually just lists, not proper articles. A "job" page should endeavour to describe what the job is. Lists of the people holding those jobs are incidental, and often should be spun out into a page, like the as-yet-unwritten, List of best boys.

Exactly how much information would be required to transfer a page from a "stub" to an "article" is another area where the editor's judgment is key. Generally, if you read an article about a job title, and you still don't really understand what the position is, or you know that the definition is lacking fundamental details, then the article is a stub.

The same is true of articles that attempt to define production terminology, like CSO.

General stub

A general stub is one that defies categorisation into one of the more specific stub types. As with all stubs, though, the basic rule of thumb is that it's not a stub just because it's short.

An article is only a general stub when:

  • it can't be classed as any more specific kind of stub
  • it's missing substantial information from appearances not yet cited in the article
  • what is included is so lacking in information that it actually gives a false impression about the topic at hand

Section stub

If only a section of an article is needing expanding, then a section stub should be used within that section.

How to mark an article as a stub

Articles are marked as stubs through the use of pre-created templates. They are included on pages simply by typing their name inside two curly braces. For instance: 

{{real world stub}}

will place the real world stub tag on a page, and automatically send the page to a list of real world stubs.

Due to the way that stub tags interact with infoboxes, the best place for it on a page with an infobox is immediately between the closing curly brace of the infobox and the first word of the article proper, without any spaces or line breaks. Thus: 

infobox}}{{TV stub}}'''''The Eleventh Hour''''' was an episode of . . .

This was it is easily located, and removed when the article's status has improved and the stub can be removed.

If the article does not have an infobox if can simply be the first thing on the article. But it's important that for all articles it should be somewhere near the top.

Stub templates

A list of available stub templates can be found at Tardis:stub templates.

List of stubs

The master listing of all stubs can be found at category:stubs. From there, stubs are further divided by type.

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Tardis:Stub&oldid=3773514"