Forum:Use of the stub template

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Use of the stub template

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

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.Tardis:Stub

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)

Actually, we should be examining these K9 stubs in the light of Tardis:Stub#Story stub not just one sentence from the lead of that article. There's a plethora of litmus tests that are there to answer the very topic of this thread. According to those detailed standards, The Korven is decidedly not a stub.

In detail, the Myths section should just be eliminated, which only leaves a few sections. Refs and Continuity are explicitly not necessary by our standards. Filming Location may not apply, if a studio bound ep, and likely the info isn't possible to find for K9 anyway. Ratings info, is extremely difficult with K9 since no one in the world seems able to provide K9 global premiere dates with any authority. So K9 gets a pass on that requirement.

On the whole, it looks like the originators of these K9 articles cut and paste from the DW format, which put some unrealistic sections on these pages. There were no well reported myths about any K9 story. There were no set reports, so there can be no reliable filming location info. And the ratings thing is a nightmare. Ratings where? Which country? Which channel in which country? UK has two broadcasters. Net10 is only the Australian premiere chan, not the global one. I don't even believe the infobox original broadcast date. See Forum:K9 broadcast dates for more on that.

Anyway, absolutely not a stub.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 23:00: Sat 17 Dec 2011 

This section's awfully stubby.

Please help by adding some more information.

Oh, to answer tech question up thread, there is a sectional expansion template. It's {{section stub}}.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:54: Sun 18 Dec 2011