[citation needed]
-MuZemike
On 12/9/2010 10:55 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Grayandrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So does clicking Random Article and (gasp) judging for
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So does clicking Random Article and (gasp) judging for one's own self
what is a stub produce a figure very different from 50%?
I
On 04/12/2010 12:05, Peter Jacobi wrote:
WereSpielChequers, All,
1 The size of the database in gigabytes has been growing faster than
the the number of articles
This is a weak argument. The constant activity of interwiki bots alone will
add a huge amount of database storage space without
If it hadn't been accompanied by the stats on the increase in readable
text at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#editdistribution
then yes it would have been a weak argument. With those stats you
have two bits of data both supporting the same picture. Of course
readable text is
Two things that lead me to suspect our proportion of stubs may be
slowly falling:
1 The size of the database in gigabytes has been growing faster than
the the number of articles
2 Even though our total number of articles is still slowly increasing
and will probably soon exceed 3.5 million, if we
WereSpielChequers, All,
1 The size of the database in gigabytes has been growing faster than
the the number of articles
This is a weak argument. The constant activity of interwiki bots alone will add
a huge amount of database storage space without increasing the real length of
the articles.
On 02/12/2010 07:24, Peter Jacobi wrote:
Charles, All,
Are we glad to have five new substantial articles, or embarrassed to
have persistent five stubs? So has this made things proportionately
better or worse? Discuss.
Short stale articles at least openly announce that they are in
a rather
Charles, All,
Are we glad to have five new substantial articles, or embarrassed to
have persistent five stubs? So has this made things proportionately
better or worse? Discuss.
Short stale articles at least openly announce that they are in
a rather preliminary stage. So I'm not bothered
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
All articles start as stubs, and grow over time. This does not happen
evenly, but there is no need for some to whine about it.
I think the point being made was that some information is more suited
to publications like
On 30 November 2010 11:11, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
I can agree that having proper prose can be a positive feature, but if
all the information that a reader might want is in the info box little
is accomplished by turning that information into fine prose. The
structured format
On 30/11/2010 11:20, Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
All articles start as stubs, and grow over time. This does not happen
evenly, but there is no need for some to whine about it.
I think the point being made was that some
From: MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] What proportion of articles are stubs?
To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:4cf4576d.3030...@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
And that's another problem that I am seeing
Stubs and how to handle them seem to be controversial still (or again),
which is rather surprising given that we have been going nearly a decade
now. I'd like to ask how many articles still are stubs, by some sensible
standard?
Points arise from that, clearly. But I'm hearing quite a lot
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:46 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Points arise from that, clearly. But I'm hearing quite a lot recently
from the glass half empty people. You know, ten short stubs are
Short answer: I think we have made a step in the right direction by
getting five decently-expanded articles as a result of ten stubs.
However, what about the ones that cannot be expanded? That leads to my
long answer below:
It depends on the expandability of the remaining stubs. Are they able
On 29/11/2010 17:59, MuZemike wrote:
Short answer: I think we have made a step in the right direction by
getting five decently-expanded articles as a result of ten stubs.
That's my answer also.
However, what about the ones that cannot be expanded? That leads to my
long answer below:
It
On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Stubs and how to handle them seem to be controversial still (or again),
which is rather surprising given that we have been going nearly a decade
now. I'd like to ask how many articles still are stubs, by some
Absolutely agree. There are a lot of articles that are not assessed
(though, for all intents and purposes, WikiProject assessments are not
exactly the same as stub-tagging on the actual article page itself) at
all, as well as a lot of articles that are still stub-tagged and are in
fact no
On 29/11/2010 20:18, MuZemike wrote:
Absolutely agree. There are a lot of articles that are not assessed
(though, for all intents and purposes, WikiProject assessments are not
exactly the same as stub-tagging on the actual article page itself) at
all, as well as a lot of articles that are
On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So does clicking Random Article and (gasp) judging for one's own self
what is a stub produce a figure very different from 50%?
I hit random and immediately produced a category error :-)
On 29 November 2010 20:50, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanarce
One prose sentence! But on the other hand, a demographic table, and a
map, and an infobox, and some statistics, and a navbox. Stub or not
stub?
At this point it may be useful to
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
So does clicking Random Article and (gasp) judging for one's own self
what is a stub produce a figure very different from 50%?
I
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Is it possible to have a breakdown of the high-end of that? i.e.
Number of articles from 10,000 bytes upwards in steps of 5,000 bytes?
And that's another problem that I am seeing more and more of. Call it
simply being lazy, unable to write actual prose, or a combination
thereof; but there are so many articles that get created that have only
one (likely unsourced) sentence, a pretty infobox, a pretty navbox, a
table,
On 30/11/2010 01:46, MuZemike wrote:
And that's another problem that I am seeing more and more of. Call it
simply being lazy, unable to write actual prose, or a combination
thereof; but there are so many articles that get created that have only
one (likely unsourced) sentence, a pretty
25 matches
Mail list logo
