Wikiversity talk:Stubs

Earlier conversation on my blog page: User:SB Johnny/On stubs and User talk:SB Johnny/On stubs. --SB_Johnny talk 10:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Little content
How you would define "little content"?--Juandev 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a very large number of pages that come under that description (see Special:ShortPages for a very large number of examples), where a page has been created, but there's almost nothing on it, and a redlink would be better. Here's a random sampling from the current list:


 * #50, Bombing of Guernica (blank except for templates)
 * #100 Inner city problems (a test create, should be speedied)
 * #150 Philosophy of History (sparse top page for a project with multiple subpages, needs attention to make it more interesting for a new reader or participant)
 * #200 Power system (blank except for templates, originally a test create)
 * #250 Chemical reactions (stub with 2 words and a bunch of templates)
 * #300 ‎Abstracts (just templates and a link to a page that itself has just templates and an external link)
 * #350 Extravaganaire (a definition and a bunch of templates (is that even a word?))
 * #400 City of Palo Alto official website/Content (subpage, needs categorizing)
 * #450 Sensory Integration Dysfunction/Introduction (only subpage of a project with no content, last edited 18 months ago)
 * #500 Heraclitus (a sentence and templates)
 * #550 Windmill (a test create with templates)
 * #600 Continuum mechanics/Motion and displacement (integrated subpage)
 * #650 Homophily (link to wikipedia and a template)
 * #700 VotApedia (an external link and nothing else)
 * #750 Rheumatology (Pediatric LMCC) (should be a subpage)
 * #800 Sexually Transmitted Diseases (LMCC) (should be a subpage)
 * #850 This (empty but for a link to our irc channel)
 * #900 Are you paranoid? (empty but for templates, nom'd for deletion)
 * #950 Second grade (a link to wikipedia, a link to a portal, and a bunch of templates)
 * #1000 Bloom Clock/Keys/Prague/Global Comparison Worksheet/October (integrated subpage)


 * So, a sampling of the first 2,000 shortpages has 14 that should probably be swept up (70%), 3 subpages of larger projects (15%), 2 pages that need to be reorganized as subpages (10%), and one main page that could use some help (but it lost amid the ocean of stubs).
 * I don't think any pages are getting "lost amid the ocean of stubs." Good pages tend to be well linked and are more likely to be accessed through links, or by search engines.  Templates and Wikipedia links are useful additions that are not always added even by good editors.  In my experience it's always reassuring to see that someone's started the page I want to write, even if it doesn't have much information yet.  --AFriedman 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I kept going (counting by 50s), after 1,500 or so it's more subpages than stubs (a large number are bloom clock pages, tbh), with a few "disambig" pages thrown in (e.g., #2800, Automation), and we start to see course outlines (e.g., #3050, Health mentoring course, #4350, Third grade elementary math), and pages that need context (e.g., Examples of possible additional questions to ask the citrus grower). The last non-subpage on the shortpages cache was Service econosystem, a stub created 2 years ago that has had no further development, but I'd put that in the gray area. --SB_Johnny talk 11:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is Introduction to HTML a stub?--Juandev 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in that case it could be redirected or merged with Basic formatting in HTML. The page as it is really just serves as a soft redirect to that page anyway. --SB_Johnny talk 14:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it isnt. It is a first lesson of the course called Learing HTML/HTML. The other you are linking is another course called Web design. If an author of a course thinks its enough to start a first lesson with one phrase, why to push him to add lots of content. It is his way, his methodology, so why we have to push him to use different methodology. And that is a problem, that we would like to set here the way of thinking that is on Wikipedie, which is an encyclopedia. Wikiversity in not encyclopedia, it is a creative environment focusing education and research.--Juandev 09:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jundev's example of HTML is a good point, perhaps only for that kind of case (if the author does point out in the discussion page of his article). For others the present notice template pasted on the pages seems a good measure. My question here though is, 'What is the policy on policy discussions? Is it to hear many points then stick to a voted decision? Or is it evolving from time to time as such a debate crops up again? There are two sides to this discussion so for me who just started following won't know which is better. Kind Regards! - Red1 10:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats philosophy than.--Juandev 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the same structure as on Wikipedia
I would like to ask the founders of this, why we should/need have the same tool as Wikipedia has? I think it is to early for kind of tools. Imagine de Wikipedie, which removed all stub templates and now, they dont understand them. Why they did so?--Juandev 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite to the contrary, this isn't a method used by Wikipedia, and stubs serve a very different function on Wikipedia than they do on Wikiversity (or Wikibooks, which is a much closer relative). On Wikipedia, stubs are created generally by following redlinks from other articles, in order to go into detail on a subject that comes up in another article. Wikiversity projects are of a completely different nature, since they aim to serve as educational materials in their own right, rather than as part of a linked nexus of articles. The problem is that Wikiversity is now dominated by stubs, so searching for materials on a wide range of topics (those with 1-page stubs) will lead to a page which is entirely unhelpful to people interested in learning further about something.


 * Merging into an archive page of some sort preserves the creator's contribution (qua contribution), while at the same time eliminating a "dead end page" which can do nothing but frustrate new visitors (several have said as much on the colloquium and elsewhere), while a search that doesn't lead to a dead end page simply informs the searcher that there is no page (but of course one can be created). --SB_Johnny talk 14:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can notice newcomers via templates with "level of completion".--Juandev 09:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. --AFriedman 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And this: is not enough?--Juandev 09:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If no new content (aside from templates, categorization, etc.) is added to a stub after one month, it should be merged into the "stub cabinet" by a custodian.
Why? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe some explanation on what is a "Stub Cabinet" or let me have a link to read here? - Red1 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See User:SB Johnny/On stubs for more information. --mikeu talk 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cleanup" of stubs
I am confused by the wording. Are stubs considered dirty? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Humor is not allowed on the Wikipedia, so why is it tolerated here?--John Bessa 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stubs is a term used for pages with very little content, but not as small as a "test page".
It needs clarification. Otherwise there shall be debates about, for example, whether a resource on a chemical compound consisting of a line of definition, a diagram, and a link of reference to be "just a line" and "very little content". Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems
I see all kinds of problems with this proposal, two important ones that stick out for me are:


 * Merging pages will make acknowledging the right contributors difficult if not impossible, should someone later wish to use a stub's content.
 * Sooner or later your going to hit a limit which will prevent continuing to merge content, making the cabinet useless. Probably sooner if a lot of stubs would be merged at once.

In short this proposal ignores licensing issues should someone wish to (re)use or redistribute a page and technical limitations imposed by the software. --darklama 15:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that stubs dilute the meaning of the Wikiversity especially when they are caught by search engines, though I acknowledge the problems above. I think maybe this is a good place to diverge from the Wikiversity, which allows for little difference of opinion.  Maybe stubs should only be allowed for subsets of a topic.  And because of page protection, there may have to an acceptance of multiple versions of the same topic, but perhaps with subtly different titles.--John Bessa 21:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding __NOINDEX__ to stubs could keep search engines from indexing stubs, without needing to delete them. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 21:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

deletion vs creation
99.9999% of Wikiversity learning resources remain to be created. Part of the process by which a wiki website grows is that pages can start small and be improved. I think we need to make a distinction between two kinds of stubs. One type of stub page is created without any thought and planning as a potential learning resource. These might be just for vandalism or experimentation ("can I make a page?"). Call those "type 1 stubs"...nobody cares if they are deleted. Other short pages are typically linked to from a content development page in the "Topic:" or "School:" namespaces or from another well-developed page. These "type 2 stubs" can be seen to be part of a plan by a Wikiversity participant for needed learning resources at Wikiversity and it is a waste of time to delete them and a slap in the face of people who start those pages. Small pages hurt nothing, except the itchy finger of admins who have nothing better to do than delete the work of others. The Wikiversity community created a way to deal with these kinds of small pages, Welcome templates, particularly Template:Welcome and expand. We now have admins who would rather delete pages than help participants develop needed learning resources....they cannot be bothered to think and see if a page is linked to from a content development page. Any custodian who cannot make these kinds of distinctions should not have access to the sysop tools. --JWSchmidt 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I would recomend to postpone this tool for future.--Juandev 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a difference between a useful and useless stub. In order to be a productive stub, there has to be some educational direction to the page (as part of a greater project or in the content of the stub), as opposed to something containing only a link to a Wikipedia page, or with two or three lines of an encyclopedia article.  If it doesn't have at least the framework of a Wikiversity project, it should be deleted after an extended period of inactivity in order to give someone else a clean slate should they be ready to develop an actual project.
 * However, I see no reason to delay clarifying when a low-content page should be deleted. On the contrary, we should be making these kinds of decisions sooner, as it will most likely only get more difficult later.

Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, so you think that 9 000 pages is enough time to start to administrate the project? What about to delete "type 1 stubs". If they will not be here other people will not be limited by the resource outlook and they might develop this resource using their own ideas. Imagine, that existing stub resources are limiting a little bit people creativity.--Juandev 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should begin planning how to administer a project from the first page, rather than close the barn door after the cows have escaped. We've already had problems here because of the gaps in policy.  Limits are important.  I don't believe we should be really restrictive, but if someone creates a page as an encyclopedia stub (rather than a Wikiversity project stub) and doesn't touch it again for months, we should consider deleting it.
 * I'm all for giving contributors fair warning and keeping a page if they ask for more time (there's no particular rush, IMO), but why wouldn't we delete a page that hasn't gone anywhere and is very unlikely to? It's just clutter, so why not get rid of it and give someone a completely clean slate if they decide to do something creative on the topic later? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you majorly.--Juandev 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I recently created new project as another approach similar to welcome and expand, with the intent to link people to useful resources that might keep them from becoming frustrated. Doing away with type 2 stubs is a waste of time of that could be better spent asking new users if they need help with anything, answering questions and teaching new users the ropes of using a wiki. --darklama 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with JWSchmidt and darklama on this, although merging a stub with a duplicate page can make life simpler. I also agree with darklama's point about introducing new users to the wiki format being a better use of time.  All else being equal, IMO it's also better to give stubs some real information and some nice links rather than simply deleting them.  I think that, in general, creating useful content anywhere on the site or helping new users is a much better use of our time than deleting pages no one looks at.  --AFriedman 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He he, good approach.--Juandev 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your template, darklama! I think it's very encouraging.  --AFriedman 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)