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 longer stubs. We need to keep that in mind when assigning a number or percentage of stubs on en.wiki, as the numbers will most certainly be off.
-MuZemike On 11/29/2010 1:15 PM, Andrew Gray wrote: > 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 sensible >> standard? > > Currently, 73% of enwp articles have some form of quality assessment. > 13% have the "infrastructure" for assessment - talkpage templates - > but no rating as yet; the remaining 14% are entirely unknown to the > assessment system. > > Of the assessed articles, two thirds are rated as stubs. > > However, there's a massive great caveat to that: an awful lot of them > aren't. Based on my experience, I'd say anything from a quarter to a > half of the "stub" articles are not, by any reasonable definition, > stubs. It's not uncommon now to see a multiple-paragraph article with > an infobox, image and external links - lacking in many aspects of its > coverage, no doubt, but a nontrivial amount of content - labelled as a > stub. > > There's three factors at work here. > > a) Redefinition: As our standards grow higher, "stub" gets repurposed > as a catch-all term for "very low-quality article" > b) Lag: articles being marked as stubs, then expanding, but the tag > not being removed (or removed from the talkpage and not from the > rating template). > c) Drift: people see the articles marked as stub in a) and b), and > assume this is what one should be like, so grade accordingly. > > Overall, using the traditional definition of "short placeholder > article providing a basic degree of context", the sort of thing you > might perhaps find in a concise reference work - I'd say ~50% of our > articles. I *think* the proportion of stubs created now is less than > the proportion created in, say, 2006, but I don't have much evidence > to back that up. > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l