Forum:What constitutes a stub article?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > What constitutes a stub article?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 6 September 2010 by Liquidhelium.

We need some sort of metric for stub articles. What makes an article a stub? When does an article stop being a stub? Generally, I think a stub stops being a stub when it reaches about this length, but I'm sure different editors have different opinions.

Proposal: Come up with some guidelines as to when an article stops being a stub, and then remove the stub template from articles that aren't stubs.

Discussion

Support - As proposer. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  23:57, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Support - That we need a metric. Although we need to discuss what it is going to be. Are we going to say how many lines or words the article needs? Or if it needs an infobox or image? I think your cabbage patch example is a good one of when stubs are promoted out of that class. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 01:46, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support that we at least have some sort of listed guideline. Personally, I just ask myself "Is the article in-depth as it currently is?". If it's not, then I classify it as a stub. For example, if Varrock was as long as Falador cabbage patch, I would tag it as a stub. But yes, I guess the Falador cabbage patch article's length would be a sufficient generalization. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 02:19, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Although it would be better to actually write the guidelines first.. Andrew talk 07:23, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Well, I was thinking that the guidelines should depend on what kind of article it is. For example, articles like Red cog will never beoome full articles, if everything has to be the size of Falador cabbage patch to stop being a stub. How about this:

  • Articles about minigames or quests must have a minimum of 500 words (not including coding) to become a full article
  • Articles about items must have a minimum of 100 words to become full
  • Articles about interactive NPCs must have a minimum of 150 words to become full (not sure about this one)
  • Articles about monsters must have a minimum of 400 words to become full
  • Articles about interactive scenery and non-interactive NPCs must have a minimum of 100 words (not sure about this one)

Comments pl0x. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:36, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Not including infoboxes or coding, by the way.

Comment - Isn't that based on what the article itself is about? If I saw an article that is about as long as the Falador Cabbage Patch's but which is about something very important (Varrock or something), I would definitely say that it's a stub. So coming up with a good metric might become very hard. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:13, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Likewise, there isn't much that can be added to the red cog article, so even now I'd hesitate to call it a stub. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  10:19, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - How about this. Stubs are articles that lack the basic information, and the wiki currently has so many of them (nearly 3,000 in a wiki of 12,000 articles) that the stub category has become nearly useless. Instead of expecting a few paragraphs on every subject, how about we lower the expectations so that it becomes a manageable task?? Once all articles are at this standard, the quality can be raised again if needed. How about this as the criteria:

  • Quest items need; in the infobox the Members, Quest, Equipable, Stacks, Destroy and Examine fields filled and an image; in the body a sentence on how it is obtained during the quest.
  • NPCs need; in the infobox the Race, members, sells items and examine fields filled and an image; the body text needs the location where he is and any quests/minigames he is involved in.
  • Equipable items need; in the infobox the members, quest, tradeable, equipable, stacks, destroy, gemw and examine fields filled and an image; the bonus infobox needs to be filled, possibly with an image; 2 or 3 sentences on the item in general.

I have to go now so there are only 3 things done, but do you think that this is vaguely a good idea?? Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:08, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support Evil's proposal - Having the general information above sounds good. I personally think a minimum word requirement isn't too great because some items most likely will be unable to meet those requirements. Take 2/3 cake for example: not including the "See Also" section or the infobox, the article only contains 65 words. Adding more information to reach the 100 word requirement would probably just result in a bunch of blabbering that barely pertains to the article, if you get what I'm saying. I honestly couldn't add anything else to the 2/3 cake article without it being relevant and practical to the article. Maybe I could add, "This item cannot be obtained unless you take a bite out of a cake," but does that really help the 2/3 cake article?  Tien  19:57, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

For short articles such as that I'd say something like once all currently known relevant information has been added, especially in respect to little-talked-about historical figures. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:24, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I personally just think that if it has as much info as possible, no matter how many words, it is NOT a stub. We do not need to add trivial or useless sentences to articles just to add to their length. In my opinion red cog is NOT a stub. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 20:28, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on both - As what is said above, the word length may not work with some articles. And with Evil's idea, I think nearly every article on the wiki would meet those requirements, as long as they're not missing infobox parameters. Just to add an interesting point to the discussion, this is Wikipedia's definition: A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion.... [1] Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 09:11, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose per Chicken's above post and Wikipedia link. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:38, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I like Gaz's idea a lot better than my own. Could we add a section about that to the style guide? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  05:10, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Telos here has a good idea here. I with him. Youdead00 00:04, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How about merge both Evil and Teleos' proposals? I was suggesting creating a new category, like, dead stubs (or something along those lines) which infoboxes are missing fields that are necessary, and our normal stubs would be articles that could be improved, so Red cog wouldn't be a stub. With the proposal, alot of articles can be removed from the stub category and a new, more urgent category can be created.

Heck, while we're at it, let's create a whole bunch of categories related to trees! Dead stubs, stubs, saplings, young articles and mature ones. (I'm sorta kidding btw) Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 02:24, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Support-Saying an article is a stub, refers your opinion, because RS wiki doesn't have a minimum. Let's make a minimum! Runecrafting-icon.png Stormsaw1 Talk Sign HighscoresRunecrafting-icon.png 04:16, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Support - There are too many stubs in the RS wikia and they really need to be sorted out. Obviously there'll be some articles which will always be sort of empty and will be mistaken for a stub, but if we got some guideline as to what is a stub and what isn't... well maybe that could remedy the situation. Black cavalier.png Zenihdrol Tribal top (blue).png 04:20, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Stubs are relative to each article, it really depends on the topic of the page. I think for an article to actually be a full article, a fairly new player has to be able to open the page up and be an expert on it when closing out. That means there needs to be quite a few links on the page along with references. I think those should be taken into account too when figuring out a guideline. scoot4.pngscooties 04:26, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

{{Rfc}} C.ChiamTalk 03:50, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - To add to what I said above, an article is a stub if more information can be added. If it has reached it's fullest potential, it is no longer a stub. scoot4.pngscooties 04:47, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I really think that we need to clarify what a stub is. I don't think a minimum-word guideline would help, because we have some articles that are really sort, but there just isn't much more we can add. Without trying to create some kind of bureaucracy, we should try and sort out the articles that need information, and those that would be short even if they were perfect. Cook Me Plox Talk 03:24, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support per evil and gaz, Its annoying that articles that have all known information are marked as stubs. Slayer Timwac talk Fire cape.png 18:01, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Most people are onboard, and nobody else is commenting. Ajraddatz Talk 19:33, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure x2 - Repeating what Ajraffatz said. 222 talk 09:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support per Gaz. JUST to slip in here... Sgt Hailfire 19:32, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I know this is quite late, but I simply don't think we should have metrics on how to decide stubs, and instead use common sense to decide. For example, if an article like Lumbridge included as much information as Menaphos does, then I'd consider Lumbridge a stub, as it would mean not all the information on Lumbridge has been added, as there is much more things happening in there. So, even though they are both locations, they should be approached very differently. So, instead of doing this with words and infoboxes etc. for each category (locations/monsters etc.); we should use common sense and check if it has enough information. If it lacks basic information, it's a stub. We shouldn't try to have metrics for everything. bad_fetustalk 19:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You can't generalize things based on how much text. Song tracks barely ever have any info, but there's barely any info on them. Pages like skills spring to tons of pages in hours and yet for a while they could still be a stub. A stub is purely when there is more information to add to an article, but it hasn't been added yet. It's not just when an article is short. HaloTalk 17:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

As such around 3500+ of the pages in category:stubs would need to be removed lol. If not more...3800+ maybe...it needs to be cleaned up anyways. HaloTalk 17:11, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As stated above, I feel that any page that has most information known about the subject on it can not be called a stub, no matter what the length. An article with little known information on it may only reach about 5 lines, how else can it be improved if the information is all added and correct? The only thing that can be done is adding a picture, re-writing, and maintenance. If an update including more information was added, then the article would become a stub, due to not being complete. ~MuzTalk 17:15, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for What constitutes a stub article?. Request denied. The reason given was: See below.

ʞooɔ 09:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support- It would help that way so people won't randomly make articles not a stub when they still are and vice versa. Quest.png Dragonslayer2010 Talk Guestbook My website Quest point cape.png 17:56, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Form a Stub Cleanup WikiGuild or something... 222 talk 03:23, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure x4 - Rough consensus. 222 talk 02:03, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Very good idea. Matt (t) 07:21, July 27, 2010 (UTC)


This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for What constitutes a stub article?. Request denied. The reason given was: See below.

Matt (t) 22:36, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why are you all requesting closure? What is the consensus? And what are some people supporting, when Telos never even made a proposal; he asked for one. Someone needs to make a proper proposal, probably let it have its own section, then people can support/oppose/suggest changes to that particular proposal. I would do it, but I'm truly stumped at where to start. Chicken7 >talk 07:25, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a proposal

A stub is an article which does not cover all information avaliable about the topic. However, just because an article is short, it does not mean it is a stub. Articles such as red cog are very short, however this is unavoidable because there simply is no more information to be added. This is also true for many other one-use quest items, characters which are only mentioned by name, and other unreleased content. However while a short article is fine for a relatively unimportant, if an article such as abyssal whip were a few paragraphs long, much longer than red cog, it would still be considered a stub given the wealth of information avaliable and the relative importance of the abyssal whip. As such an article's status as a stub is independent from length and other quantifiable data, however there are still some rules which can be applied across the board. An article can only stop being a stub if:

  • Its infobox, if applicable, is completely filled out
  • It has at least one image apart from an inventory icon if it is possible for such an image to be obtained
  • It gives information about the location where the topic is encountered
  • It gives information about any other items, locations, or NPCs relating to or interacting with the topic
  • It gives information about any quests or activities relating to the topic

My attempt. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:57, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


Strong Support - Matt (t) 08:25, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

5/5 Support - Very good except "It has at least one image apart from an inventory icon" as not all items can be seen outside the inventory. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:32, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Also unreleased NPCs. So Ive clarified. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:33, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Kthx. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:39, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like it. Other additions are necessary, imo, but this will do fine. I can't really put my thoughts into words. Also, fun fact. This would mean that all our current quest pages are stubs. OMG! Let's change that. Chicken7 >talk 08:41, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

If other additions are necessary, people can just be bold and add them as needed, as long as they are in line with the core message. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:43, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

{{rfc}} Matt (t) 10:20, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

That really wasn't necessary. Only add {{rfc}} to threads which haven't had any comments for a while, and everyone knows 2 hours isn't a "while" Smile 222 talk 10:31, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I only posted it because I wanted people to talk about it so we could reach consensus. Matt (t) 10:46, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but I think it's going to receive more activity from RS:YG that [[RS:RFC]]. Anyway, users should not be adding {{rfc}} to YG threads. If there is a lack of discussion, it means there is a lack of things to discuss. They should try and bring something new to the discussion. Chicken7 >talk 12:01, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Can't we just change it to "It gives information on everything relating to the topic", since it's basically the same with what you said? bad_fetustalk 10:23, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don' think so. Most of our articles don't have "everything related to the topic", so yeah. A lot more stubs OMG! 222 talk 10:31, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Those will turn into stubs according to psychonubs proposal too. bad_fetustalk 12:16, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "most relavant information pertaining to the topic"? You can never have all information about something. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:03, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, my point. 222 talk 07:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it matters, people like having a sort of "check list" and if you don't, you can just ignore it and pretend it says that. Maybe change your .js file to replace it with what you suggested. I suggest asking User:Pestered at all hours by people with coding and formatting questions. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:12, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - currently a lot of short articles such as music tracks are listed as stubs, when really theres not any realistic way of expanding them. Henneyj 03:11, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support + potentially stupid idea - I think a lot of people don't realise that no more information can be added when they add the stub template. This means that a lot of articles cannot be expanded and therefore cannot be removed from the "stub" category. An idea of mine to remedy this is to create a "no stub" template explaining that although it may be short, it cannot realistically be expanded; this template would then be added to articles like the red cog and the Falador cabbage patch. This would make people realise that adding the stub template will do nothing. Rune hatchet.png The Gedge Tinderbox.png 14:17, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Shorts (blue).png This article is short. It currently contains all relevant information, so is not a stub, and cannot be expanded. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:56, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
^^^ I totally support that. This is what needs to be done for what I see in small articles. Coelacanth0794 00:00, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

100% Support - Honestly I was about to create this proposal, but someone else did it first :P aww well. I agree with what everyone says, because we cannot fully define a stub article. This is what the wiki needs - to define stub articles so we know what articles have enough info to become a nice informal article. For example, articles such as [[Fief|this]] have the information we have derived from Jagex (God Letters). Or something like this does not have relevant information because this is all we know about it. What I'm saying is agreeable with everyone, right? Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 00:21, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - I do think we need some sort of guidelines for article stubs, and this proposal definately has the key points needed. Lgm123990 16:47, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. HaloTalk 17:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for What constitutes a stub article?. Request denied. The reason given was: Consensus is supportful. See below

Matt (t) 04:31, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has not run its course. Many elements of this thread still need consensus. In general, this thread should not be closed yet. 222 talk 06:52, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - These guidelines should be added to RS:STUB which is - ironically - in need of expansion. Some paragraphs from wikipedia can be added. I also support Gaz's idea of a "no stub" template. 222 talk 06:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The proposed guidelines are clear and to-the-point. They'd be very helpful in weeding out the short non-stub articles. I hope this is implemented so that I may cease to be confused. :P sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 07:05, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - How's the clearing the stubs going? There still seem to be a lot. Also, is Adamant platelegs (h5) considered a stub? 222 talk 07:27, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Urbancow. Looks like a good set of guidelines to follow. Sir Punchula 05:37, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Psycho's proposal has been added to RS:STUB. --LiquidTalk 16:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)