Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 15

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215

Issue with userbox

I want to create some userboxes, but before creating I want to discuss if all the userboxes will be suitable with wikipedia guidelines or not. (I am here giving the texts which will be displayed on the userbox).

1. "This user strongly oppose civilization." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
2. "This user strongly oppose capitalism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
3. "This user strongly oppose communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
4. "This user strongly oppose both capitalism and communism." (there is nothing offensive in this statement)
5. "This user supports Animal Liberation Front." (this userbox may not be suitable becuse ALF is often considered as a terrorist organization)
6. "This user supports Nuclear weapon." (there is nothing controversial in this statement because most nations, including United States support nuclear weopon)
7. "This user supports Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable because Biolohical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
8. "This user supports Chemical weapon."(this userbox may not be suitable because Chemical weopons are prohibited by United Nations)
9. "This user supports legaligation of Biological weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
10. "This user supports legaligation of Chemical weapon." (this userbox may not be suitable)
11. "This user supports Nuclear war." (there is nothing controversial in this userbox)
12. "This user supports Weapons of Mass Destruction." (this userbox may not be suitable)
13. "This user think Osama bin Laden should be given death penalty." (this userbox will be suitable because it reflects majority opinion)

Please advice me out of the above-mentioned sentences, which will be suitable to be used in userbox according to wikipedia guidelines and which not.

• I cannot find that there is any offensive statement in the first 4 proposals. I agree that the fifth proposal may be controversial as it is associated with Animal Liberation Front, as ALF is often described as a terrorist organization. I think the proposals with Biological weapon and Chemical weapon also may be controversial as no nation is supporting these weopons and these weopons are prohibitated by United Nations. But I cannot find there will be anything wrong with the nuclear weopon proposal, because most nations support Nuclear weapon. And supporting Nuclear War is also not controversial. And the last suggetion may reflect majority opinion that Laden should be given death penalty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure one of my colleagues could provide you with a more neutral response based on policy and balanced forethought, but why the hell would you want to create a userbox in support of nuclear war? Just out of curiosity. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:51, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear war is part of War. The purpose of Nuclear war and War are same, but the level of damage is different. When the purpose of war is damage, I do not find any problem in supporting nuclear war. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That reasoning would support creating a userbox that says "This user supports war". Again, same question, why support war? War to any end? What are we trying to say here? Don't create any of the userboxes that have to do with weaponry of any kind. I think that whether or not it is your goal these userboxes can only serve to incite controversy in userspace and make other editors feel uncomfortable. If you create them they will get deleted anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:00, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any objection with the sixth proposal? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for the same reason, however you have more of a chance of getting away with that one as it's more benign. But specific boxes aside, what exactly is your motivation to create these userboxes? They seem to be intentionally controversial. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:07, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

All the nations, majority of the nations support nuclear weopon. United States support nuclear weopon. Then what would be the problem in supporting nuclear weapon? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And also wikipedia has already a similar userbox. {{User:WebHamster/fucking}} Then what is the problem with the nuclear weopon userbox? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood that exactly. This userbox is saying that war is pointless and counter-productive. You haven't answered my question though. Why do you want to create all of these userboxes? What is your motivation? Equazcion •✗/C • 16:13, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of userboxes is to tell the ideology and opinion of users. When users do not directly tell their ideology, they tell it through userbox. It is the purpose of userboxes. The proposed userboxes will tell the opinion of the users who will use these userboxes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the creation of a userbox in support of an opinion should be left up to users who hold those opinions. It's not necessary to create a host of userboxes in the assumption that people will need them. This particular host of userboxes seems to be a campaign to incite controversy and give users a reason to fight with each other. Thats not what we're here to do. If you want to do something that helps editors collaborate on the improvement of the encyclopedia, please feel free to do so. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:26, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

All the opinions posted above are my personal opinion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In wikipedia there is already a userbox opposing communism. {{User:Brain40/Userboxes/Anti-communist}} Please tell me are the first four proposals violate any guideline? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The existence of crap does not entitle you to create more crap. These are divisive and should not be created. Why would you want to do this anyway? Don't you at least want people to take you just a bit seriously? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've given you my answer. You'll have to wait for others to comment on this. Looks like someone just did. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Creating controversial userboxes simply to do so is disruptive editing. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to be a social networking site. We're not competing with Facebook. If you want to put up personal userboxes, go ahead - no one is likely to pay much attention anyway. But I suggest that this thread is largely a waste of time, and there would be nothing wrong with it ending now. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Time spent creating and arguing about controversial or divisive userboxes is time not spent improving the encyclopedia. It's unclear how these userboxes would assist in the goal of creating an encyclopedia, while it's already evident that they will be counterproductive in terms of generating controversy. I think this is the same thing you're hearing from others above. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the weapon related proposals. I am also withdrawing the proposal associated with Animal Liberation Front. However I think the first four proposals are not controversial. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been said already, this is a waste of time. The fact is no one can stop you from creating userboxes, so if you want to that badly, just do it -- but keep in mind you're not helping Wikipedia by doing it. I'd rather keep an eye on your edits and CSD the pertinent creations than take up any more space here talking about this. I hope this can be the end of this discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:13, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note, that such userboxes are strongly discouraged, even prohibited. If you check Wikipedia:UBX#Content_restrictions, the third bullet point reads:

"Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising."

This page makes references to WP:NOT#OPINION, which states against opinionation. While users may say that WP:NOT applies to articles, as it says in Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content:

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. "

Also, I cite WP:NOT#BLOG, which states under the first numeral:

"Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia."

What is important to note about this, is that these userboxes are not "relevant to working on the encyclopedia" and therefore should not be used in a userbox. As stated in Wikipedia:UBX#Content_restrictions:

"Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes."

I hope that you can now see that such userboxes do not belong on wikipedia. I hope that this does not seem like wiki-lawyering, but I felt that since this seemed to be mostly a discussion of preferences, and that policy had not been cited, that there needed to be some physical grounds as to why these are not appropriate. I think that the editors here need to focus not on the subject of the userboxes, but on the policy which denies their creation. Since wikipedia strives for NPOV, we must not let the debate of the ideals get in the way of the policies in place to control such matters. Thanks and have a nice day!--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy citations are secondary to making editors understand the larger issues at hand. This user needs to know why his actions would be unwelcome and unhelpful. But policy is a good backup, if all else fails. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:28, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I am again saying that I am withdrawing my all proposals except the first four, because I think these four proposals do not violate any guideline. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes are a gray area policy-wise. In all honesty you may be able to get away with the first four, simply out of precedent. But once again: You are not helping Wikipedia by doing this. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, any userboxes which expresses an unrelated opinion is not to be included on user ages as per WP:NOT#OPINION and Wikipedia:UBX#Content_restrictions. This would apply to even your first four proposals. While policies can always be ignored for the purpose of productivity as per WP:IAR, this does not apply, as it does not improve wikipedia. Also, it is to be noted that userboxes such as these, while they may seem innocent enough to describe users, wind up dividing the community. As wikipedia is a unified non-partisan neutral community, such classifications are unnecessary, and possibly even harmful. Finally, the question must be raised, what purpose do they serve for the betterment of the encyclopedia? As I see it none. Don't be discouraged, simply refocus this effort into the betterment of wikipedia, where much effort is needed.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy is against it but precedent is not. See any one of the trillion or so existing userboxes. However one important distinction here is that these userboxes don't declare an interest; only a viewpoint. See, a great many userboxes can get off on a technicality whereby they declare the user's interest in, say, MacGyver, and therefore other users seeing this will know that this user is a possibility for collaboration on McGuyver-related articles. But these userboxes only declare that the user has a particular opinion one way or the other on an issue. Since articles are not generally written about viewpoints, those userboxes can't even get off on a technicality. On top of that, what's even worse is that declaring your viewpoint as a badge of honor this way encourages those that share a viewpoint to inevitably choose each other to collaborate with, which has a better chance of biasing an article. Anyway, I'm rambling and I think we're done here. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:53, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The grammar is also lousy. "This user opposes" or "supports"; not "This user oppose" or "support"! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup on front page

I propose that we have some sort of prominent help wanted listing at the front page, or using the banner at the top of the page (when it's not preempted by other official announcements). The cleanup & sourcing backlogs are incredible, and anything that can be done to attract new, productive contributors would be nice. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the WP:TODAY proposal that some people are working on. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects States

I was currently using AWB to redirect states to there original articles if someone searched for example, Concord, Nh -- which would be redirected to its orginal article. However, I was stopped by someone because I was creating to many broken articles, although, I go back and fix the broken redirects, or ask someone to delete them. He also said no one in their right mind would search for such a thing, and he took permission away from me to use AWB. Ohmpandya (Talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Plausible search terms, which means they are reasonable redirects. For example, seaching "toronto, ON" works but "toronto, on" doesn't (exactly the same as searching "toronto, On"). However, I don't understand how you managed to create red linked or broken redirects. –Pomte 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the discussion is here: User talk:Ohmpandya/Archive 2#Please stop creating redirects. Some more is here: User talk:Lucasbfr#Block and here: User talk:Lucasbfr#Ohmpandya. What particularly concerns me is this: After my bot is done redirecting all the cities in the state I usually go back and look at all the broken redirects and fix them ... . I believe that it's a violation of the rules to run AWB in automatic mode without getting approval first at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. And the point of that requirement is to avoid exactly what happened here: thousands and thousands of (literally) mindless edits without any prior discussion.

I'm not saying that these redirects aren't potentially valuable (I haven't looked at the user contributions to see exactly what was being done), but there is a reason for bot flags and maximum editing rates set on bots - if nothing else, automated AWB edits can fill up the recent changes page and can't be filtered out, making it harder for recent change patrollers to do their work. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe the people who run AWB have their own process for letting approved-bots run on their software Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots. MBisanz ^talk 15:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I personally think these redirects are not really valuable since there is no inbound link, if you want to make them, having a real bot creating all of these would be a good idea to prevent recent changes cluttering (when you were running your bot, about 1 of 5 edits (more or less) on all Wikipedia were made by you). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the main reason for creating so many redirects is because the internal search doesn't handle lowercase search nicely, then perhaps someone can find an update of where that MediaWiki bug is up to. For now, as other editors have said above, bots need to be discussed and approved prior to a new task being run, and done with a flagged bot at a much slower rate. Personally, I'd also be using template {{r from other capitalisation}} to assist sorting redirects in the future. --Breno ^talk 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stepped vandalism warnings by bots

(Portions of this proposal were originally sent as part of an e-mail to an admin who rejected a request for an abuse-report because the IP hadn't received enough blocks.)

It seems to me that the (anti-vandal) bots, while they perform a HUGELY valuable task in reverting vandalism, actually might HINDER the process of getting rid of vandals in the long run. For example--Look at the log for (IP address 24.190.150.146 [1]). It's largely vandalism. Had each of those incidents resulted in a stepped warning--vandalism1, vandalism2, vandalism3, vandalism4, and vandalism4im--this IP would have the requisite 5 blocks, probably long ago. But because the incidents were bot-reported, and thus very-gently bot-warned, they couldn't be blocked (no last-and-final warning, til I put one there) and now can't be abuse-reported (not enough blocks).

Is there a way that bots could be programmed to give stepped warnings, so that this last-and-final requirement can be met and the vandals can be blocked? I understand that it's difficult, in an environment as big as Wikipedia, to consider vandals on a case-by-case basis, but I've seen some BLATANT vandals get passed-over by admins more concerned with the process than the outcome--and in many cases, these pat-on-the-head bot-warnings were part of the issue. Gladys J Cortez 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not an admin. Secondly, I understand what you mean. The bots are very smart in that they do give warnings in order (1,2,3,4), and they know which have been recently issued. When properly warned (given a last warning) and the bot catches more vandalism, it does report the user to AIV. So I imagine the problem is that the bot has a set time limit: i.e: If a level 3 warning is given Monday, and the user vandalizes again on Friday, the bot may not recognize the level 3 warning because it has been so long in between, so it will probably start over and give a level 1 warning. I don't know this for sure though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(My bad--I thought anyone who was involved in reporting users must be an admin. Oops!) It may just be that we're encountering different bots, but I don't think I've ever seen a warning more vehement than the usual "Your edit appears to constitute vandalism..." one. (Then again, there IS no warning as vehement as I'd like.) If there are steps, I'd be interested to know a)which bots use them; b)what they say at each level; and c)what that time-limit is, if that's how they do it. They just seem extremely lenient--which makes sense, since they're machines. :) Gladys J Cortez 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The most active "anti-vandal-bot" I see is ClueBot. Here are some example diff's (and notice the " #1 " , " #2 " , etc. in the edit summaries):

Level 1 warning, Level 2 warning, Level 3 warning, Report to AIV (since the bot recognized that the user already received a final warning).

Another very active anti-vandal-bot is VoABot II. As far as I can tell from its contributions, it does not give stepped warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well shut my mouth. :) That's honestly the first I've seen from ClueBot of any level except Level 1, which leads me to believe your time-delay theory is probably true. If that's the case, I'd love to see the bot fine-tuned--the "reset" on individual IPs is, IMHO, far too lenient. But maybe that's just me. (Hey, thanks for the work, RJD--I learned something new today!) Gladys J Cortez 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC) (came back to sign my comment.)

No problem! - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thought there was a small working group convened to synchronize vandalism bot warnings (via edit summaries, I think). If not, there should be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There should be, really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject user warnings might be a good place to start. --Breno ^talk 12:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My bot only steps with an HTML comment for now. Voice-of-All 13:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New CSD criterion

Debate for a new CSD criterion has been taking place on the CSD talk page. The criterion would be CSD#T3, which would allow orphaned and deprecated templates that are not part of series to be speedy deleted after seven days.

The debate has been listed on Template:RFCpolicy list for the past several days. It seems that they are not any strong objections to adding the new criterion, however, as CSD is official policy, some users thought it would be best to post on a pump or noticeboard to ensure that a healthy number of people were aware of the debate. If you have a comment or would care to join in the debate, please visit WT:CSD. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's ban stubs.

I've had an epiphany. We need to ban stubs. If an encyclopedic topic is not covered, either write a reasonably complete article (at least a few paragraphs) or add something about it to an appropriate existing article such as a "List of..." or the meta-article on the area. If and when sufficient material is added on that topic to justify breaking it out, then it gets its own article. If this is the rule, I think the encyclopedia will develop a more organic growth pattern, with articles growing like leaves beginning as buds on the branch of a tree. bd2412 T 11:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Negative, I have seen articles evolve from a stub to a very solid 'B class' article in less than a day, this is mostly seen with articles that deal with people or topics that belong in a non-English speaking country or society, these are mostly created by English-speaking users but are left as stubs until a member of said society takes some of his/her time to improve them further. 69.79.90.173 (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen stubs linger for months, even years. Ok, give it a day or two, and if nothing happens, merge it into the the relevant meta. bd2412 T 22:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's been suggested a lot before and it's a terrible idea. A very significant number of great articles started as stubs. Discouraging people from starting articles unless they have a significant amount of material doesn't accomplish anything, because it's notability rather than content that determines whether a page should exist. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:50, 12/26/2007

I don't mind stubs but I hate unsourced articles. A stub with a source or two can be expanded relatively easily. But a long article with no sources is harder to expand. Whoever creates an article has some kind of source. Is it too much to ask that they include the source. They don't even have to format it properly (which is a bit difficult for beginners), they could just include the raw URL and that would be a big help. Could we make a rule that every article has to include some source? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your metaphor about "leaves beginning as buds" is great, but it ignores that stubs are those buds. To eliminate stubs is to expect fully-formed articles to just spring forth fully-formed, which doesn't happen (and frankly shouldn't; this is a collaborative environment, after all). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Please excuse my language but I fucking hate edit conflicts and propose they be banned.)Anyone who creates an article has a source, not necessarily, at least not necessarily a valid or referenceable one. People write about things they hear about from their friends, family, neighbors, things they see on TV or are taught in school. And besides which, no, you couldn't make a rule like that -- it would be too restrictive to say that you can't write anything without also including a source. Writing first and allowing some time for sources to be added later isn't a terrible thing anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(ironic that I get edit-conflicted by the above :p)

Certainly it would be most useful to simply require sources for new articles - many articles deleted at AfD are deleted because people can't find sources, and bypassing some of the ref-less-create to AfD-delete cycle would be a good idea. That being said, I'd be concerned that a hard and fast rule would inhibit the creation of legitimate stubs by raising the barrier to entry.

Banning stubs, on the other hand, is unacceptable - stubs can move up into better and bigger articles, and a sentence off of which to work is much nicer than an inhibitive empty window. Also, stubs can still be informative - sometimes a stub on Wikipedia is virtually the only online reference for a topic. I think that we would have much to lose by excluding them, as frustrating as they can be in their terseness. Nihiltres^{t.l} 15:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Stubs are useful in their own right. There is only so much to say, for example, about a rare isotope, unincorporated African town with a population of 110, or the 7th son of an ancient monarch. However, due to the nature of hyperlinking and article organization it is more useful to keep these as separate objects than as part of a list. Regading sourcing, of course it is always better to have a source than no source. In many cases, though, it's better to have the information than no information.Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. I think the cases of the rare isotope or small town or minor royal are ideal for merging and presenting in the context of an article which actually gives some context to the subject. Otherwise, most any lengthy Wikipedia article could be broken down into hundreds of stub articles on individual aspects of, for example, a person's life, or a city's culture, history, geography, etc. bd2412 T 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone who actively works on expanding or merging wine stubs, I have to agree with Wikidemo . Some stubs are unavoidable and they do serve a purpose, even if they aren't expanded. There are several examples on List of grape varieties like Abouriou. I have searched high and low for more info and have yet to find anything that will take this beyond a paragraph stub. It is a notable topic that needs an article. Where can I merge it? It's a French wine grape but it is also found in California and Washington so you really can't classify it as a French wine grape. Plus an article like that would be HUGE with everything from the popular Merlot and Chardonnay to entries on the more obscure Abouriou and Sciacarello. So what is left? You have to live with the stub. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest having an article on Minor French wine grapes - the fact that it is found (to a lesser degree) in other places does not detract from it being a French wine grape; and framing the article as relating to minor examples of the subject keeps Merlot and Chardonnay out. If Abouriou suddenly becomes massively popular, enough information would likely develop to break it into a separate article. bd2412 T 03:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that would POV and a bit OR to develop a classification of "minor" since Abouriou is a fairly major grape in some Vin de pays as well as the Côtes du Marmandais. In France, each little AOC or wine region is like their own autonomous entity and its like apples and oranges to compare a Bordeaux grape to a Burgundy grape or a Southwest France grape to a Languedoc grape. Rarely are grapes or wines compared on the grand scale of all "French wine". (Think of the fist fights between Bordeaux and Burgundy lovers :p) As I mention before, I am very active in expanding and merging stubs. I have often do merge smaller topics into a large article so I can kill off the stub. But in some cases that strategy doesn't work. While Abouriou is only a paragraph stub, it is a well referenced and informative paragraph stub that serves its purpose. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to ban stubs, as an editor has to start with something and most of the stub articles are on a topic which does indeed merit a mention, or a "starter" article. The problem is not that there are too many stubs, but that too few editors are interested in expanding articles -- they want to tend to their own creations, or create stubs and leave them for someone else to clean up develop into actual articles. Then too, witness the proliferation of stubs created by bots, which produces the same effect. I wish I had time to expand stubs, but frankly, a whole bunch of us stub sorters have our plates full just trying to keep the stubs organized. "Banning" them wouldn't help -- expanding them would, imho. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What we class as "stubs" vary hugely in size and quality. I certainly would not want to ban the longer ones, but the very many that have less than about 40 words of main text could easily go - if the article is needed it will be no hardship for the text to be rewritten. There are hundreds of the cluttering up Category:painting stubs for example, though admittedly most of these do have images. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Monsieur, franchement, à quoi peut bien servir de s'envoler dans les airs?" "Monsieur, à quoi peut bien servir l'enfant qui vient de naître?" Nick mallory (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, too many stubs doesn't necessarily imply and unmanageable encyclopedia, it may very well mean a community of editors not interested in managing them. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Stubs are great. At least they are much better than nothing. In fact often stubs are the buds from where leaves grow. But, if they don't, they at least provide the basic info for the Wikipedia user to get a grasp of the topic. --Sugaar (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The annoying nature of stubs is a benefit in disguise, in that if the person who comes across it has even a trace of obsessive-compulsive wikignomic tendencies, they feel compelled to google it and expand it. It feeds into the addictiveness. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd you cant write a whole page article on EVREYTHING its nive to have big pages but alot of people rely on Wikipedia for these "stubs" Most of the articles I write are small pages or "stubs" I once wrote an article (Indirectly) on Caucasian Sketches a stub Whom May I add is the first things you see on Google when searching for it,Why steal people of such Knoledge. and to be truthfull several topics have hard to find knowladge, I strongly Opose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaharous (talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sugaar has a point. Stubs can be very helpful, and if they aren't, at least they're better than nothing. We don't hack away at the flower just because it's small. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Absolutly not! Stubs make up the majority of our articles, and it's much better to have a little info on somehting than nothing. Please explain what's wrong with stubs anyway? You also say "with articles growing like leaves beginning as buds on the branch of a tree" — isn't that how they develop, starting as buds (Stubs) and growing?--Phoenix-wiki 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Converting User: prefix to Editor: prefix

Moved to WP:VPR/Persistent proposals. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:34, 28 Feb 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Addsection

Moved to WP:VPR/Persistent proposals. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:28, 28 Feb 2008 (UTC)