Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > "A short article is not a stub." Repeat 10 times under your > breath. > > ... A subject that can be exhaustively > covered briefly, is not a stub. Period.
Thank you for saying this. Often, especially in biographical articles, I've been seeing facts tossed in that seem way below the bar for encyclopedia-worthiness: names of the subject's children, birthplaces of people they know (!), etc. Are people adding stuff like that in order to get stub tags removed? IMO, making an article "not a stub" by padding it with trivialities does not make the article better. It clutters Wikipedia and distracts from the genuinely important content. A one-paragraph article that crisply tells the noteworthy fact or two about its subject can be an excellent article. Is there any controversy about that? Or are those trivial facts getting in not because of stub tags but just because lots of people love to pad? Ben _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
