Editing SmashWiki talk:Stub
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
You aren't logged in. While it's not a requirement to create an account, doing so makes it a lot easier to keep track of your edits and a lot harder to confuse you with someone else. If you edit without being logged in, your IP address will be recorded in the page's edit history. | |
 Log in
|
Create account
| |
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Okay, so now that I've sat and observed the goings-on for quite awhile now, this policy doesn't make sense to me anymore. The fact that SmashWiki "just has too many short smasher articles" isn't a reason for not tagging them as stubs. First, you have to consider why we're tagging stubs in the first place as well as what other benefits it offers. Of course, at face value it offers the standard wikified benefit of indicating to the reader that the article provides only fragmented information and entices those knowledgeable on the subject to expand upon it. However, it also categorizes the whole thing into [[:Category:Stubs]], or (even better) [[:Category:Smasher stubs]]. I'm not sure what principle we're trying to enforce here, but if the only reason for not including stub tags is so we don't clutter up Category pages, I gotta say...that's the opposite of what we ultimately want to do. | Okay, so now that I've sat and observed the goings-on for quite awhile now, this policy doesn't make sense to me anymore. The fact that SmashWiki "just has too many short smasher articles" isn't a reason for not tagging them as stubs. First, you have to consider why we're tagging stubs in the first place as well as what other benefits it offers. Of course, at face value it offers the standard wikified benefit of indicating to the reader that the article provides only fragmented information and entices those knowledgeable on the subject to expand upon it. However, it also categorizes the whole thing into [[:Category:Stubs]], or (even better) [[:Category:Smasher stubs]]. I'm not sure what principle we're trying to enforce here, but if the only reason for not including stub tags is so we don't clutter up Category pages, I gotta say...that's the opposite of what we ultimately want to do. | ||
See, by introducing smasher stub templates into small, piddly articles that probably have little or no bearing on the smash community at large, we are effectively sorting through the articles that will eventually get '''deleted'''. It provides us (or "me" or "someone else with initiative") with a list to work with, complete with convenient links to both the useful smasher stubs that ''need'' expanding (like [[Ultra Luigi]] and [[Thunders]]), as well as the ones that should be outright deleted (like Cappin' Wings and PALO DA SUFFOCATER and [[PPS]]). | See, by introducing smasher stub templates into small, piddly articles that probably have little or no bearing on the smash community at large, we are effectively sorting through the articles that will eventually get '''deleted'''. It provides us (or "me" or "someone else with initiative") with a list to work with, complete with convenient links to both the useful smasher stubs that ''need'' expanding (like [[Ultra Luigi]] and [[Thunders]]), as well as the ones that should be outright deleted (like [Cappin' Wings]] and [[PALO DA SUFFOCATER]] and [[PPS]]). | ||
I guess the main problem I have with it is that I just can't see any ''good'' reason for omitting it. The purpose of a stub stag is to indicate to the reader that this article does not necessarily provide the rudimentary information on the subject. When it comes to smasher articles, yes you're right, sometimes there isn't exactly a lot of information available, but that's no reason to withhold that fact. This way, at least the reader ''knows'' there isn't much info available. The English Wikipedia says that 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. This is how I prefer to think about smasher stubs: All articles begin as stubs, but you have to treat each one differently and use some discretion and attention to detail when looking at them and to do so, I've found that there are a few distinct "types" of stubs: | I guess the main problem I have with it is that I just can't see any ''good'' reason for omitting it. The purpose of a stub stag is to indicate to the reader that this article does not necessarily provide the rudimentary information on the subject. When it comes to smasher articles, yes you're right, sometimes there isn't exactly a lot of information available, but that's no reason to withhold that fact. This way, at least the reader ''knows'' there isn't much info available. The English Wikipedia says that 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. This is how I prefer to think about smasher stubs: All articles begin as stubs, but you have to treat each one differently and use some discretion and attention to detail when looking at them and to do so, I've found that there are a few distinct "types" of stubs: | ||
