- Nominated on 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC); needs 3 votes by May 31.
A basic topic in language with a very ragged treatment here (although improved from a few weeks ago).
Support:
Comments:
- I don't think that this article is, technically, a stub. However, in light of the paucity of nominees, I suppose it's close enough to a stub to merit consideration. (In general, perhaps we should relax the rules, in order to allow not only stubs but other short articles. I don't have a good definition of "short" at the moment; I'm just raising the idea for future consideration.) -Scottwiki 09:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- My understanding is that "stub" is a moving target, relative to the importance of the topic. I've seen too many random articles that are three sentences long on minor league football/soccer players, and though they've been marked a stub, I think to myself, "relative to the importance of this article, why even bother including it as a stub?" On the other hand, here is a basic topic in language with a long and colorful history, crossing many cultures, and it's a mish-mash of sentences that take up about one computer screen. Stub? I say yes. Outriggr 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe there needs to be a new definition of what COTW is - that it is for articles which are shorter than they should be? while AID is for articles that are already the right length. since wikipedia is larger than when COTW started there are not as many major topics that are just stubs --Astrokey44 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- An interesting comment on the talk page of List of proverbs adds to my point. Outriggr 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)