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 info
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, categories
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Carl (CBM) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Carcharoth
> 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?
>
> Sure, I'll put a table below.
Thanks!
Car
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Carcharoth 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?
Sure, I'll put a table below. The number shown under "len" is the
bottom end of the length range.
> Also,
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Carl (CBM) wrote:
> I think it's safe to say that the majority of our articles are "short"
> and a significant minority are "very short".
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 5,0
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Charles Matthews
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?
The
On 29 November 2010 20:50, Andrew Gray 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 revive the term "substub".
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
> 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
On 29 November 2010 20:42, Charles Matthews
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 :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanarce
One prose sent
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 s
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 longe
On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
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,
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:
>
> I
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 Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
> 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
>> created, and a year later five are still s
On 29 November 2010 17:33, Charles Matthews
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
> created, and a year later five are still stubby, five are much improved.
> Are we glad to have five new
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 recent
17 matches
Mail list logo
