Stubs: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Stubs (view source)

Revision as of 19:00, 13 August 2005

2,322 bytes removed ,  13 August 2005
m
Major editing.
No edit summary
 
m (Major editing.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Stub]] articles are the ugly ducklings in the TrekWiki pond. Outsiders scoff at them, and make dark comments about the abysmal quality of information to be had on TrekWiki. But they are also seeds for better ones. Every article on TrekWiki, in one way or another, began as a kind of "stub" -- even the City pages added from a US government database were "stubs" which provided a base for editors familiar with these places to elaborate with greater and deeper content.
'''Stubs''' are articles which have not yet received substantial attention from the 118 Wiki editors. They have been created, but don't yet contain enough information to be considered articles. The community believes that stubs are far from worthless. They are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete. The objective of this article is to provide a general guide for dealing with stubs. It is recommended that all users read the Essential information section, which consists of the first half of the article. Additional information contains data which might be of interest only to advanced users, and thus is optional.


Some salty veteran contributors may consider stubs a nuisance because they prevent missing coverage from appearing as missing articles. (See the essay [[m:Kill the Stub Pages]] for debate.)  Yet, in spite of all the scorn they sometimes garner, many times a stub has grown up to be a beautiful swan.  
==Essential Information==
===Identifying a stub===
A stub is an article which is clearly too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title. This usually means 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that a longer article may be a stub if the topic is complex enough; conversely, a short article on a topic which has a very narrow scope may not be a stub.  


When creating or editing a "stub" article, remember that its value is primarily in what it will become, and that it must grow if it is to become anything at all. Don't assume that additions and improvements will immediately pour in of themselves. The best way to draw the attention of others into contributing is by editing it yourself, even a small copyedit -- your edit will appear on [[Special:Recentchanges|the recent changes]] page, where many seasoned wikipedians love to follow the action, and jump in where there's work being done.   You don't have to do extensive research to create a foundation on which others will be eager to build, but you should be thoughtful enough to simply add what you know, or correct what you may know is incorrect (try not to call someone else's work "wrong").  Among the traditional [[Wikipedia:Proverbs|proverbial]] suggestions about Wikidom, there is the idea that articles should not be "perfect" -- having a misspelled word or two draws a reader into correcting that article and being interested in adding more. A summary of this idea might be ''focus on writing an article or editing it - don't try to do both.'' Here are a few suggested guidelines:
Note that small articles with little information may end up being nominated for deletion. 118Wiki is not a dictionary.


# Provide a "This is a stub" message by adding '''<nowiki>{{msg:stub}}</nowiki>'''. (See [[Wikipedia:Boilerplate text]] for more.)
===Including stub templates===
# Inform the regulars that there is work to be done by adding a link to [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub]] into your stub article. Many contributors patrol the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent Changes]] page, but if your stub scrolls off without attracting any contributions, it helps to have a more permanent flag that further work needs to be done.
After writing or finding the short article, the editor should insert the stub notation: '''<nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki>'''. This creates:  
# Follow the standards of proper English. Write in full, clear sentences.
# Give a clear, precise [[definition]] or description of your topic.  Avoid [[fallacies of definition]].  For biographies and articles about non-concepts (e.g., about countries and cities), definitions are impossible, so begin with a clear, helpful, informative description of the subject.  State what a person is famous for, where a place is and what it is known for, the basic details of an event and when it happened, etc.  A good definition or description may encourage potential contributors by suggesting the limits of the article, indirectly summarizing what needs to be done.  For example, '''''Salvador Allende''' was the President of Chile from 1970 until 1973'' would be a good description.
# Try to give more than just a definition--at least a little more.  It doesn't hurt to be provocative, as long as you attempt to be [[neutral point of view|unbiased]] and reasonably accurate.  What is interesting and important about the subject?  If your introduction would make someone want to read further, then it will probably entice someone to write further.  As little as one extra sentence can turn a good description into a brilliant stub, e.g. '''''Salvador Allende''' was the President of Chile from 1970 until 1973.  The CIA might have been involved in the coup that ousted him.'' With a start like that, you don't have to know any more yourself; a dozen contributors will be falling over themselves to fill in the details.
# Make sure any relevant linkable words have been linked. But be careful about which words you link to; see [[Wikipedia:naming conventions|naming conventions]]. e.g. '''''Salvador Allende''' was the President of [[Chile]] from [[1970]] until [[1973]].  The [[CIA]] might have been involved in the coup that ousted him.''
# Submit the article with a Summary comment that will attract the attention of others to your stub.  If nothing else, cut and paste the stub itself into the Summary field when you save your article. 
# Feel some responsibility for your stub article.  There is a fine line between helping by outlining out what needs to be done, and being annoying by not doing anything yourself.  If nobody contributes to your stub for a few weeks, roll up your sleeves and expand it yourself.  Take the fact that nobody has contributed as a hint that your stub might not have been that great, and if nothing else, try to make it a better stub.
# Don't just add links. Links are fine normally, but just on their own, they say very little about the topic you are writing about.


It is possible to follow these guidelines without writing a treatise. Generally, for the shortest of Perfect Stubs, two sentences will do fine--as long as they're two ''good'' sentences.  (And if you don't know enough about a topic to write two good sentences, do consider not writing a stub.)  The extra time and concentration required will pay off in a higher probability that you get the ball rolling on something, rather than putting up a static object of derision.
{{stub}}


Admittedly, these guidelines are in some sense irrelevant because no matter what you do, someone will probably fix the article for you. That's the beauty of a wiki!  But if you want to contribute something positive, and you can't write the whole article yourself, then at least let your contribution be an implicit invitation to participation.
This notation will put the article into the stub category (making it easier to find), and will also alert readers that this article needs some help. By convention, these stub templates should be placed near the bottom of the article.  


See also [[Wikipedia:Contribute what you know or are willing to learn about]].
===Ideal stub article===
When you write a stub article, it is important to bear in mind that its main interest is to be expanded, and that thus it ideally contains enough information to give a basis for other editors to expand upon. Your initial research may be done either through books or through a reliable search engine such as Yahoo! or Google. You may also contribute with knowledge you have acquired from other sources, but it is useful to conduct a small amount of research beforehand, in order to make sure that your version of the facts is correct and from a neutral point of view.
 
Begin by giving a definition or description of the topic in question. Avoid fallacies of definition. Since at times definitions are impossible, you should write a clear and informative description of the subject. State what said person is famous for, where a place is located and what it is known for, the basic details of an event and when it happened; just to give a few examples.
 
Next, you should try to expand this basic definition. The previously mentioned research methods will often fetch you enough information for you to be able to expose the basic points of the subject. Once you have a couple of well-structured and well-written sentences, you should internally link relevant words, so that users unfamiliar with the specifics of a subject can understand what is written on the article. Avoid linking words needlessly; in case you are in doubt, you should use the preview button and try reading the article from the point of view of somebody who has had no exposure to information regarding the subject. If no word seems hard to comprehend or relevant enough, simply don't link anything.
 
Once you have submitted the article, there are a number of courses it may take. An editor might get interested in it and develop it further, or you could expand it yourself once you have found more information about the subject or once you have more free time on your hands.
 
{{WikipediaContent}}
 
[[Category:Stubs|*]]
[[Category:Help]]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.starbase118.net/wiki/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/10513"

Navigation menu