Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Stubs"
(Created page with "Looking at the entries that are labeled as stubs, I see that many of them fall in two categories: (1) entries that are quite advanced for AoPS and (2) entries that don't have a l...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | <!-- PLEASE SIGN COMMENTS WITH ~~~~ --> | ||
Looking at the entries that are labeled as stubs, I see that many of them fall in two categories: (1) entries that are quite advanced for AoPS and (2) entries that don't have a lot to say about them. While I think entries of type (1) serve some goal and can be expanded, there are many better places to read about them, e.g. on Wikipedia. My bigger concern lies in entries of type (2), for example [[coefficient]]. How much can one really say about coefficients? I understand that not everyone will know what a coefficient is, and the entry could serve simply as a definition. However, that is all that is necessary. So, should this still be a stub? | Looking at the entries that are labeled as stubs, I see that many of them fall in two categories: (1) entries that are quite advanced for AoPS and (2) entries that don't have a lot to say about them. While I think entries of type (1) serve some goal and can be expanded, there are many better places to read about them, e.g. on Wikipedia. My bigger concern lies in entries of type (2), for example [[coefficient]]. How much can one really say about coefficients? I understand that not everyone will know what a coefficient is, and the entry could serve simply as a definition. However, that is all that is necessary. So, should this still be a stub? | ||
One approach may be to keep these entries, but to unlabel them as stubs. Another might be to include this as a subsection in [[polynomial]] and for the coefficient page to redirect to this subsection. I am hoping to start some kind of discussion to see what people prefer, because at the moment there seem (to me) to be too many stubs which will not benefit much from improvement. | One approach may be to keep these entries, but to unlabel them as stubs. Another might be to include this as a subsection in [[polynomial]] and for the coefficient page to redirect to this subsection. I am hoping to start some kind of discussion to see what people prefer, because at the moment there seem (to me) to be too many stubs which will not benefit much from improvement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Sounds like an interesting idea. However, I believe that the reason why most of the articles you mentioned are classified as stubs is not due to a lack of content, but rather due to a lack of description and specific examples. I may be wrong though. [[User:NeoMathematicalKid|<span style="color:green !important;">NeoMathematicalKid</span>]]<span style="vertical-align:sub;font-size:80%;">[[User talk:NeoMathematicalKid|Talk]]</span> 13:00, 15 March 2014 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:00, 15 March 2014
Looking at the entries that are labeled as stubs, I see that many of them fall in two categories: (1) entries that are quite advanced for AoPS and (2) entries that don't have a lot to say about them. While I think entries of type (1) serve some goal and can be expanded, there are many better places to read about them, e.g. on Wikipedia. My bigger concern lies in entries of type (2), for example coefficient. How much can one really say about coefficients? I understand that not everyone will know what a coefficient is, and the entry could serve simply as a definition. However, that is all that is necessary. So, should this still be a stub?
One approach may be to keep these entries, but to unlabel them as stubs. Another might be to include this as a subsection in polynomial and for the coefficient page to redirect to this subsection. I am hoping to start some kind of discussion to see what people prefer, because at the moment there seem (to me) to be too many stubs which will not benefit much from improvement.
- Sounds like an interesting idea. However, I believe that the reason why most of the articles you mentioned are classified as stubs is not due to a lack of content, but rather due to a lack of description and specific examples. I may be wrong though. NeoMathematicalKidTalk 13:00, 15 March 2014 (EDT)
