This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps workgroup to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the map-needed parameter.
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
MPF, in my opinion, six sentences is certainly a stub, despite the fact that it has a one-sentence section. I was also wondering why you reverted the headings? WP:HEAD isn't exactly clear on this, but it does say that one should start with == and then use subheadings. If it's a matter of style preference or page formatting, I'm not sure I understand. I've asked for clarification on this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings). --Rkitko(talk) 14:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've seen many pages far shorter than this have stub notices taken off (not by me), with the edit summary being 'not a stub'. A stub is something like what Polbot has been creating - basically, pages with no information at all other than the name and a taxobox. This article counts as Start class. As for ==headers== vs ===headers===, it is a matter of style preference; having ==headers== on such a small page breaks it up too much, with the underline running right across the page. A ===header=== makes it look a lot better, and doesn't harm the formatting of the page (contrary to what I have seen claimed). - MPF 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Likewise, I've seen others creating sizeable articles many times this size that they list as stubs. We can't depend on what others do as an example of what the correct course of action is. I refer to both WP:STUB and the WP:PLANTS assessment guide. It does indeed seem to be borderline as far as WP:STUB is concerned, but it seems to be a stub by WP assessment standards. It's a very concise article, but it needs a lot more information to become a start.
As for the headers, it is your opinion that it makes the article look better, but that's why we have a manual of style. Wikipedia:Manual of style (headings)#Nesting seems to state it clearly. I believe there's some way to change your personal settings to the view you prefer. I'm not quite sure how, but other users have indicated such. Perhaps in the monobook script. Otherwise, it's probably best to stick to the MOS. You can always join in the discussion to help clear this issue. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much participation from people who watch the MOS pages. --Rkitko(talk) 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd say by both the WP:STUB and the WP:PLANTS assessment guide, it is more than a stub - MPF 21:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
