Forum:Use of the stub template: Difference between revisions
Mini-mitch (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Stardizzy2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Note it say "but not always" and the next section. All those pages you removed the TV stub from all had a plot and sysnopis - but that's about it. All TV stories when created usually have more than a few sentences - but still miss key sections which need filling in - in the case of all these pages it either story notes, continuity or references and in some cases it has two of them or even all. And you say that is not a stub? It is. It most certainly is. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 21:28, December 17, 2011 (UTC) | :Note it say "but not always" and the next section. All those pages you removed the TV stub from all had a plot and sysnopis - but that's about it. All TV stories when created usually have more than a few sentences - but still miss key sections which need filling in - in the case of all these pages it either story notes, continuity or references and in some cases it has two of them or even all. And you say that is not a stub? It is. It most certainly is. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 21:28, December 17, 2011 (UTC) | ||
::well, I guess it comes down to the "so obviously missing information that it practically screams for information to be added to it." I think that my point still stands. anyway, I hope that other editors, other than me and you, will chip in with their opinions. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] <sup>[[User talk:Stardizzy2|talk to me]]</sup> 21:47, December 17, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:47, 17 December 2011
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
a bit of an edit war with Mini-Mitch
I had earlier taken down the "stub" tags from some K9 episodes (e.g. "The Korven'). Mini-Mitch contacted me to say that the "stub" tag still belonged because these had some sections still unfilled.
for my part, I like to adhere to the Wikipedia definition, as given here:
"A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and which is capable of expansion. Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing."
taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub#Basic_information.
"sections requiring expansion" does not equal "stub". though I don't think that this Wiki has a template for "sections requiring expansion", does it?
(while on the subject, this Wiki could really use a template for subjects which look like stubs but for whom not much information exists.) --Stardizzy2 talk to me 21:21, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
- We are not Wikipedia. We define stubs as:
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.
- Note it say "but not always" and the next section. All those pages you removed the TV stub from all had a plot and sysnopis - but that's about it. All TV stories when created usually have more than a few sentences - but still miss key sections which need filling in - in the case of all these pages it either story notes, continuity or references and in some cases it has two of them or even all. And you say that is not a stub? It is. It most certainly is. MM/Want to talk? 21:28, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
- well, I guess it comes down to the "so obviously missing information that it practically screams for information to be added to it." I think that my point still stands. anyway, I hope that other editors, other than me and you, will chip in with their opinions. --Stardizzy2 talk to me 21:47, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
