Proposal Archive
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 19, 2014
|
Introduction
Now that the stub length discussion has ended, there is still not a consensus. I have eliminated the unpopular choices, the ones with a negative rating:
- (-1) Less than 300 bytes
- (-4) Less than 1,500 bytes
- (-4) Less than 2,000 bytes
- (-3) Less than 2,500 bytes
- (-4) Less than 3,000 bytes
- (-3) Less than 3,500 bytes
- (-3) Less than 4,000 bytes
- Additional policies
- Accepted: "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."
Proposal
You can support/oppose/neutral to more than one. Under the additional policies section, if you have any ideas, add them there. 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 18, 2014 at 9 a.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:17, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Less than 500 bytes (Rating: 0)
- Neutral - I am okay with this amount, although I would prefer 300 bytes, but that has been eliminated. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:18, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Support - What Andrew said. I still would have preferred 300 bytes. JosephHawk 📪 13:25, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral leaning Support - This amount is okay, but I prefer 1,000 bytes Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign! 05:16, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral leaning Support - This is fine too but could be reached by adding a few pictures. Auron May the odds be ever in your favor! 02:38,8/23/2015
- Support - --Spongebob456 talk 15:23, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
Less than 1,000 bytes (Rating: 5)
- Support - this is a good amount, and it looks like most of the community is leaning toward this one. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:18, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I still believe 500 bytes is better. JosephHawk 📪 13:25, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Support - per AMK. Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign! 05:16, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Looks perfect to me. Auron May the odds be ever in your favor! 02:38,8/23/2015
- Support - --Spongebob456 talk 15:23, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
Additional policies
If you have a different idea on how to define a stub or have an idea for additional policies, please list it in this section.
Length of the Infobox (Rating: 0)
- Note: This would only apply to pages with an infobox. - 120d
- Oppose - it's an extra few steps just to figure out the size of an infobox. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:19, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per AMK.
- Oppose - per AMK. Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign! 05:16, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - To many extra steps. Auron May the odds be ever in your favor! 02:38,8/23/2015
- Neutral - perhaps the infobox still needs to be taken into account? --Spongebob456 talk 15:23, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
Bytes excluding the infobox (Rating: 0)
- When determining if an article is a stub, the infobox does not count toward the total number of bytes. - Nicko756
- Oppose - it's an extra few steps just to figure out the size of an infobox. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 12:19, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per AMK. JosephHawk 📪 13:25, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree that this would take a few extra steps.
Nicko756 (M•C•E) Sign! 05:16, July 18, 2014 (UTC) - Oppose - To confusing. Auron May the odds be ever in your favor! 02:38,8/23/2015
- Neutral - perhaps the infobox still needs to be taken into account? --Spongebob456 talk 15:23, July 18, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Add any additional comments in this section.