User:Angela/Stubs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia is a garden, and we are its cultivators. Sometimes brilliant prose flows readily from one's pen, but many excellent articles started from the most pathetic of stubs. Ed Poor

User:Pcb21's anti-stub sign


  • Much to my amazement, I have seen a few miserable-looking stubs...blossom into real articles. Viajero
  • Stub articles are the ugly ducklings in the Wikipedia pond. Fritzlein
  • A short stub does no harm. Fred Bauder
  • No article is often better than a useless article. Eclecticology
  • I get enjoyment from creating stubs. Honestly, I think that something is better than nothing. Tim Chambers
  • One reason that no stub page is better than a stub page is that no page ...is a "teaser" to all of us who can't resist the urge to write. Jimbo Wales
  • I really don't know why there seems to be so many people against stubs. mav
  • If you spend the weekend creating 200 stubs instead, you will have accomplished precisely nothing. Axel Boldt
  • Time and time again stubs have shown to be excellent spurs for more complete entries. The Cunctator
  • I think Wikipedia would be better served by having edit links pointing to an empty page, rather than misleading people into thinking there's some kind of useful information there. Bryan Derksen
  • There is nothing wrong with a stub. LittleDan
  • Stubs are like crumbs caught on Wikipedia's beard. Dori
  • I think there's nothing wrong with "stub" articles per se, and in fact I think it's great to have them. Larry Sanger
  • I can't see any possible use for stubs. Axel Boldt
  • I think stubs are a good way to "seed" Wikipedia. DavidWBrooks
  • There's no need for such sub-stubs. Jheijmans
  • Better one good article than five stubs. Tannin
  • Of course everyone agrees a long article is better than a stub. But in the same way a stub is better than nothing. Wik
  • Wikipedia doesn't need any more stubs. IMHO if you aren't going to do a real article, you shouldn't bother doing a stub. Chadloder
  • There are too many stubs about the topic, I simply want to make a protest and that's all. wshun
  • Some people don't want to take 2 hours (or more) to write a decent-length essay. I think Wikipedia needs every little bit it can get, as long as it is correct. Ansible
  • If people are prepared to write an article they should be prepared to write more than a sentence. 212
  • Wikipedia is ... a *working* encyclopedia. Stubs are part of that on-going work. Tarquin
  • Very short articles on insignificant subjects are more likely to be neglected. Eloquence
  • Stubs are bad. Where stubs can be killed by use of redirection, this is often a good thing. Martin
  • Stubs suck and they make Wikipedia look bad. On the other hand, stubs represent content that someone was willing to donate, and why should we discourage people from contributing what they can? Larry Sanger
  • If a page is created that has a decent one-line definition then we should rejoice that somebody has started that subject. mav
  • Stubs are doing us a disservice [but] certainly we shouldn't berate people for making them. Bryce Harrington
  • Stubs are embarrassing. Gareth Owen
  • I think stubs are a necessary evil. Pete
  • There's also a distinction between temporary stubs and permanent stubs. I still think merging is the best solution to permanent stubs. Martin
  • If you merged them people would be less likely to think to expand them. Stubs are a Good Thing. CGS
  • What we need to do with stubs is draw attention to them. Sam Francis
  • Stubs are ...at least excusable, which is more than can be said for the [[list of how famous people like their coffee, cream and sugar]]. Stevertigo
  • Routinely deleting empty good titled articles may only slow down the growth in bread and depth of the Wikipedia. Mike Irwin
  • I'm not saying that they should all just be deleted! I just want to prevent their creation. Toby Bartels
  • One should hesitate to generate such stubs, but it's bad form to delete them. The Cunctator
  • No content pages with good titles should be deleted. Stephen Gilbert
  • I worry that excessive deletion of stubs is like birds pecking at the seeds which the farmer had just planted. I also worry about stubs that never blossom into full flower. Ed Poor
  • Yes, we delete stubs, but not all stubs, just the very bad ones. Andre Engels
  • There is absolutely nothing wrong, in my opinion, with deleting stubs that will never be anything more than dictionary definitions. Larry Sanger
  • Of course we shouldn't delete legitimate stubs. Eloquence
  • Whether something is a stub or a sub-stub is a matter of opinion of course. Alex Rosen
  • It is not enough to say that "somebody" should fix the stub. If you're not going to be that "somebody" there's no need to complain when a useless stub is deleted. Eclecticology
  • In the case of stubs, there will always be doubt, because the determination of "useless" is not objective. The Cunctator
  • A stub can also contain useless information -- the point is not to generalize what stubs are and what they are good for. Stevertigo
  • Stubs in Wikipedia are like leaves on trees. Stuck at the extremities they only hinder the logger; but without them, the growth of logs would be laboriously slow! Tell
  • I would also discourage stubs, which are lazy, and expect others to do the hard work. JFrost
  • Short articles in general, and some stubs in particular, are suitable ways to develop some parts of WP. Charles Matthews
  • Stubs are like babies -- small, ugly, and smelly. but one day they'll grow up and be able to perform household chores. Brion
  • When I find a stub about something I know about, I add to it. If nobody made stubs, then Wikipedia would grow at a far slower rate. TheSilverHornet
  • Stubs are like seeds. Some fall on the hard grounds, where they die. Some are carried off by birds to be pooped out in places like E2 or other wikis. Some grow into tiny little plants, but as tiny little plant seeds, that've done all nature intended. But some go on to be great articles, all because someone thought to leave a little stub. Denni
  • Why do people waste their time (and ours) on articles that have only one line? naryathegreat
  • I don't see a one-line stub as a waste of time; that's more than was there before. Have faith, eventually they'll improve. Meeler
  • If you're going to create an article, be ready to put some effort into it right then and there. naryathegreat
  • A stub will be seen and improved, a missing article is less likely to be created if you, the person who sees the need, fails to create it. So better create a stub than leave a gap. Bmills
  • I doubt people have said as many witty things about stubs as they have about deletion. Daniel Quinlan