The following proposal has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
Date Resolved: July 11, 2014
Result: Discussion ended, on to part 2.
There has been enough arguing in regards to stub length, so we need to establish some sort of stub policy. There were several ideas thrown around, so I am going to list a series of options as to how we define and deal with stubs.
The main point here, is that we need to actually establish a stub length. One person may define a stub differently, and so there would be different interpretations of a stub length, and thus continued adding and removing of the stub template.
The number of bytes can be found on the article history pages.
Less than 300 bytes (Wikia considers this a stub)
Less than 500 bytes
Less than 1,000 bytes
Less than 1,500 bytes
Less than 2,000 bytes
Less than 2,500 bytes
Less than 3,000 bytes
Less than 3,500 bytes
Less than 4,000 bytes
Also, please discuss this, whether you support/oppose/neutral:
Any article that is later defined as a stub but also is an article in which all information is complete, is no longer considered a stub, no matter the length. Example: If a stub is considered less than 2,000 bytes, and a certain article is 1,700 bytes, yet it is almost impossible to add any more information, the article can no longer be considered a stub.
You can support/oppose/neutral to more than one or even add your own. We need to come to an agreement as to the best size to which we consider a stub.
This discussion will end on Friday, July 11, 2014 at midnight, eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 03:08, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Less than 300 bytes
Note: This is what Wikia considers a stub.
Support - Wikia considers this an official stub. So, I shall support this size. Pretzel📪🔎
Support - Wikia considers this, and I agree. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 03:21, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - This is too small. This number can be tripled with just an infobox. 120dTalkContribs 03:40, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - - I agree with 120d's point. --Spongebob456talk 15:34, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with 120d and Spongebob456. Nicko756(M•C•E)Sign! 18:53, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Less than 500 bytes
Weak Support - Still close to 300 bytes... Pretzel📪🔎
Extremely Strong Oppose - Way too high. Nicko756(M•C•E)Sign! 19:05, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Add this as part of a stub policy: any article that is later defined as a stub but also is an article in which all information is complete, is no longer considered a stub, no matter the length. Example: If a stub is considered less than 2,000 bytes, and a certain article is 1,700 bytes, yet it is almost impossible to add any more information, the article can no longer be considered a stub.
Support - yes, absolutely makes the most sense. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 03:21, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Strong Support - - What AMK152 said. User:TrevorOntario719/Sig
If you have a different idea on how to define a stub, please list it in this section.
Length of the Infobox
Note: This would only apply to pages with an infobox. - 120d
Support - I personally think that this is the best as it would ensure that the page is not too shorts. 120dTalkContribs 03:46, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
I think most pages will end up having an infobox at some point. Were you thinking about having a separate policy for article stubs without infoboxes? — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 04:10, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
What I am saying is that a byte system is not a good system because it should matter the length of an article not how many bytes it has. If I have a page that has just a long infobox, that will max out the limit of the stub. I don't think that you or anyone, but me is thinking about how easy it is to get to these limits. Take this page for example: http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/Sponge?action=history. It isn't even close to done, but it already is at over 3000 bytes. It should be a length system, not a byte system. - 120dTalkContribs 19:09, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
How else would we define a stub length? — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:32, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - On some articles, half of the infobox is just the image alone. Nicko756(M•C•E)Sign! 18:15, July 7, 2014 (UTC)
Bytes excluding the infobox
When determining if an article is a stub, the infobox does not count toward the total number of bytes. - Nicko756
Support - I think this is the best compromise between 120d's point and the byte system. Nicko756(M•C•E)Sign! 19:20, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral leaning Support - Right now I am Neutral only because I want my thing to win, but if this is winning I may change my vote.- 120dTalkContribs 21:23, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - How will we determine the size of infoboxes? Seems like it would be too much extra work. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 19:51, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
It is actually easy. You go to the history and then you find the edit(s) where the infobox was added. If there is more than one edit, you add all number of edit together and then subtract that number from the total bytes. If you added more than just the infobox in that or those edits, you can go to a sandbox and add the infobox and find the number. An example of this full method is the page "Sponge" is, without the infobox, 1924 bytes. Also, your excuse is the lazy person's excuse. - 120dTalkContribs 20:46, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
Some infoboxes change, thus the size of the infobox changes. It's not an excuse and it's not laziness, it's inefficiency. There is no need to do extra work just to see if something is a stub. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 21:13, July 9, 2014 (UTC)