Talk:The Geranium

Untitled

Excessive "further reading" notes. More article, less references that do not reference anything --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a stub that has existed for 10 minutes. Give it time. The comprehensive list of sources provides editors material with which to build the article, ensuring that the stub will one day develop into a full article. As for the reader, it's better than nothing. Wounder (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. However, you may wish to move the bulk of this list to this talk page; that is the recommended procedure for including potential future reference material. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to. The references serve as a starting point for the reader's own research until a full article is written. I'm not sure what you are hoping to accomplish by slapping a vague cleanup tag on a newborn stub. I repeat: newborn stub. Your time here hasn't been constructive. Wounder (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is not only a strong precedent for removing lists like this to the article's talk pages, it's also mentioned as the recommended procedure somewhere. . .perhaps in the WP style guide or the WP article on writing good stubs. At the moment, I don't have time to dig it up, as I am on my way out the door, however, I promise that I will as soon as I can. IN the mean time, if you think I'm full of it, please ask for a second opinion on WP:Village Pump. I believe the tag does serve a contructive prupose. If you want the list to be obvious to someone about to edit the article, there are ways of accomplishing this without cluttering up the article itself. I'd be glad to discuss this with you. As for my time here being useful, as you can see, I'm willing to spend time discussing this with you & working with you, so it might be worthwhile to WP:Assume good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgagnon999 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How can it clutter up the article when there is no article? It's a stub. You are appealing to conventions that apply to normal, full articles. I agree that in normal, full articles, further reading sections should be concise. But, once again, for the fourth time, this is a stub. The sources give future editors material with which to build a normal, full article and the sources give readers a starting point for their own research. It is worth repeating, for the fifth time, that this is a stub. I still am wondering what you hope to accomplish with a vaguer than vague cleanup tag when 'cleanup' is implicit in 'stub'. Wounder (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A stub is indeed an article; one that is under development. I agree, there is no point in applying certain tags to stubs when said stub hasn't been expanded into a full article. However, there are circumstances where tags should be applied to stubs. For instance, even stubs should include at least one reference; stubs that do not are frequently enough tagged with a "references needed" tag; in fact, stubs that do not include a reference are sometimes deleted via speedy deletion because they lack one. And there are many other instances, too, where tags apply to stubs, for instance, tags that indicate a skewed POV, tags that indicate possible spam or advertising, and tags that indicate certain tones that are inappropriate for encyclopedia articles, among many others. I applaud the fact that you've taken the time to include such a comprehensive list for future editors, however, again (and I haven't had the time to dig up the exact guideline quote for you), Wikipedia article pages are not a place to provide exhaustive lists of further reading for potential article expansion--unless you yourself intend to do so in the near future (in which case you would put a "work in progress" template at the top of the article). The point of putting the cleanup tag at the top of the article is exactly as I have described here; it is to point out that the list you had provided (at least in the opinion of this editor, and you are certainly welcome to get a second opinion), was too much, too long, too all-inclusive. We are talking about a single short story by O'Connor, not the entire O'Connor cannon, right? Try not to take it personally. I think what you have now, a shorter, to the point list of the best resources, is probably more useful to future editors than the longer list; this way they don't have to sift through so many possible choices to find the best resources for expanding the article. You are obviously familiar with the story and the lit. criticism attached to it; your expertise in coming up with a short, useful list of fruther reading has been well applied in this newer, reduced version. That said, you could still include the longer list into the talk page for those interested, or even include it in the article via a list of hidden comments visible to those editing the article. Again, I'm trying to be helpful here; I hope you can see where I am coming from.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see where you are coming from, and am glad we have reached a compromise. The sources are indeed still in the article, only hidden. Anyway, I apologize for overreacting. Wounder (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)