2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonav...@gmail.com>:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/2/17 Matthew Brown <mor...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those sources will give you stubs, will they give you much more? I
>>>> guess it depends on how specific a field guide you have.
>>>>
>>> Stubs aren't bad things.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, but there are far more topics that it is easy to write a stub
>> about than there are topics that it is easy to write a whole article
>> about.
>>
>>
>
> Erk... this is what we have the template {{notastub}} for.
>
> "A short article is not a stub." Repeat 10 times under your
> breath.
>
> <sarcastic aside>
> Otherwise, why would the 1975 Encyclopaedia Britannica
> Micropaedia article on "Monastery" consist of 12 words?
> </sarcastic aside>
>
> But completely seriously, a subject that can be exhaustively
> covered briefly, is not a stub. Period.
All true, but not at all relevant to what I was saying. I was talking
about how much you can *easily* write about a subject, not how much
there is to write about it.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
