It’s seems some well meaning wikiHow contributors need a refresher course on how stubs are handled at wikiHow. Sadly, some of the contributors are New Article Boosters and should understand wikiHow policy.

Here’s a link explaining the differences between a stub and a short article.

https://www.wikihow.com/Know-the-Difference-Between-a-Stub-and-a-Short-Article

It might be helpful if this was reviewed.

Thank you,

Penmouse

Hi there. Please allow me to explain what a stub is: Stubbing an article is most commonly done for articles that could benefit from more detail. When a {{stub}} tag is placed on an article, that article is deindexed from both the wikiHow search engine and external search engines, examples being Google and Bing. Articles should be stubbed if they do provide the necessary information but need more detail to benefit readers. We generally prefer that articles have minimum a few sentences of significant, instructional information. If an article is considerably lacking informational content and provides barely or no help whatsoever (e.g. a reader would wish they never landed on the page in the first place), then we would nominate it for deletion as incomplete by tagging it as {{nfd|inc}}. You can read more on our Deletion Policy here . The article (not policy, as we don’t have a stub policy) you linked I would actually consider a stub, coincidentally for an article that discusses stub. @Anna , one of wikiHow’s staff who has been here for several years and is currently on leave previously told me that “Well stub isn’t really about length - if it’s not helpful or accurate, you can stub it.” ( source ). Of course, we do have more precise article templates like {{accuracy}}. A collective listing of those can be found here . In order to assess the need of stubbing an article, consider “Would this article help me as a reader? Is it insightful and have sufficient detail?” Over the past decade, wikiHow’s quality standards have grown a great deal and we aim to have the best instructions for all our topics. We want internet users to correlate wikiHow with quality, meaning wikiHow having the best and highest-quality information. One more thing I would like to add to assist you in judging whether an article is a stub is by comparing the article to more developed articles that are related, such as articles in the same category. Examine the level of detail in each portion of the articles.

An article can always be improved and have its stub tag removed. The main goal of stubbing is to hide unhelpful and undetailed content from readers as they are forced to sign in to view stubbed articles. If you find a low-quality page that you believe is high priority and should be improved, you can submit an editing request here . I profoundly hope that you stay with us and keep contributing! If there is anything we can do to help you transition back to the site, please let us know! Thank you, and welcome back!:slight_smile:

I know EXACTLY what a stub is and is not. The articles in particular recipes were complete. They were not stubs. A complete recipe has an intro, ingredients list and recipe directions. Adding tips, warnings, etc. are optional. 

What I wrote many years ago have been at wikiHow for a long time. Many of the stubs have had photos or graphics added illustrating the recipes. The recipes were complete.

I sense some of the “old guard” trying to bully and harass an alleged new comer and it back fired as I have been contributing to wikiHow from almost the beginning. I was one of the first NABers and I helped influence some of wikiHow’s policies including my strong stance against spam. 

I am sorry my return has been so unwelcoming. I hope Jack reads what;'s written here. I will be contacting him privately to discuss how poorly I’ve been treated. I suspect there are true newbies have been treated the same way and it makes me sad. I like to believe wikiHow would be a shining light of helpfulness and kindness.

wikiHow’s definition of a stub has significantly changed. The article hasn’t had any updates since 2011. Edits after that were typo fixes, new images once, bots, and categorizing. We also have higher standards for articles now.

Culinary articles should cover every aspect of the process. I suggest reading developed articles like How to Bake Cookies . Images certainly help deepen the understanding of content, but articles with undetailed and unhelpful content that have images can still be stubbed, and articles with no images that are well-detailed can, in fact, be stubbed. Also from one of our contributors, as an example of detailed culinary articles:  https://www.wikihow.com/User:WikihowSaver/MyArticles

If you’d like specific feedback for an article, you’re welcome to leave a note here: https://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow\_talk:Article-Review-Team

It is definitely unacceptable to disrespect anyone on this site, regardless of how long they’ve been around. Users who are newer may have a better understanding of the site (and possibly more hands-on experience) than those who have older accounts. Not all of us are newcomers and I find it very discourteous to refer to everyone else as that. Many of our policies have undergone significant alterations since 2009. I don’t understand how spam is relevant here.

You haven’t been treated poorly at all. I hate to say this, but it’s the opposite. Disregarding updated information from others and being stubborn/unwilling to adapt to changes is rude. ( https://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=wikiHow%3AAdministrator-Notice-Board&diff=23547279&oldid=23547233 ) Users are to be civil when discussing matters on the site. Always be open to constructive criticism . Please read these to further understand wikiHow as it is in 2017 before making any further edits to the site or leaving messages:

Recipes do not have to cover every aspect of cooking. Can you imagine writing an article on how to roast a turkey and having to include everything ever written concerning this adventure?

A good recipe needs to have:

  1. Introduction.

  2. Complete ingredients list

  3. Complete and clearly written directions.

Here are some of the articles I started or helped edit Some are recipes and some are not.


https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Applesauce-Pancakes-(Large-Quantity-Recipe)
https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Cranberry-Apple-Relish

https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Soft-Margarine

You will notice the articles are well-written and are complete. 

Here is what wikiHow states at its current recipe policy:

https://www.wikihow.com/Handle-Recipes-on-wikiHow

Give the recipe the most distinct title that fits. Read the ingredients and steps, and compare the recipe to other, similar recipes. What makes this one different?  Change the title  accordingly:

  • If a major ingredient is different, include that ingredient in the title. For example, an article titled “How to Make Chocolate Rum Balls” was nominated for merging with  Make Rum Balls . But on closer inspection, the merge candidate turned out to have a different main ingredient: it used wafer cookies, not chocolate chips. So, the title was changed to  How to Make Rum Balls from Wafer Cookies  and the merge tag was removed.
  • If the recipe yields a particular variation of the same dish, add a fitting, objective descriptor to the title. Adjectives like  moist dense light heavy , and  chewy  are all acceptable descriptors because they indicate  how the results are distinct. Words like  special unique delicious , and  great  are not acceptable because they’re subjective. For instance,  How to Make a Spongy Chocolate Cake  creates an understandably different product than  How to Make a Dense Chocolate Cake , while different authors might describe each as “a Delicious Chocolate Cake”.
  • If the recipe uses a different method (microwave, oven, blender, etc.), specify that method in the title.


Image titled Handle Recipes on wikiHow Step 2

2

Preserve the most basic title. People often search the Internet with the simplest phrase they can think of. If wikiHow has multiple unique recipes for a single dish, it’s best to preserve the most basic title and link to the more specific articles from there. To continue with the chocolate cake example, the title  How to Make a Chocolate Cake  links to several other pages with unique variations of chocolate cake. The article should provide basic instructions, and an additional section can be added for recipe variations.


Image titled Handle Recipes on wikiHow Step 3

3

Combine recipes only when the difference is minor. If you can’t find anything distinct about the recipes (e.g., the only difference is the amount of salt or an idea for a topping),  merge the pages  and preserve the difference as a tip. Only do this if you’ve exhausted all other possibilities, to preserve an author’s good faith contribution to wikiHow.

The wikiHow recipe policy does not state a recipe has to be comprehensive in order to be complete. It is something you decided was policy. I am sorry.

Penmouse, I’m afraid I have to point out here that there are issues with the articles of yours that you linked:

  • Care for a Child With Croup was revised by a staff team in 2016 ( diffs )
  • Make French Bread Pizza was also heavily revised ( diffs )
  • Make Bread Stuffing[…] was stubbed; when you removed the stub in April, another editor restored it ( history )
  • The above also applies to the margarine article ( history )
  • The applesauce pancakes recipe does not clearly define what you need to do; that would be stubbed in current-day NAB
  • The cranberry-apple relish article is not detailed enough for a reader to know what they’re doing, and would also be stubbed in current-day NAB

The article you also cite as the recipe policy is not a policy; it’s a guideline article. Many contributors have linked multiple articles that align with our current-day standards for recipes. There isn’t really much I can say about this, except for the fact that what wasn’t a stub several years ago may well be a stub now, just because our quality levels have changed (which is ultimately a good thing).

I would like to make a few points here.

First of all, welcome back to wikiHow. It’s always nice to see old editors return.

Building on that, one unfortunate issue with returning after extensive breaks on wikiHow is that editors may not notice that standards change and update over time. These changes are necessary. Years ago, it was to improve our SEO ranking due to a Google update that saw us take quite a hit in the rankings. These days, things change to improve the overall quality and readability for every visitor to our site.

I noticed that for you, it’s almost like you refuse to admit that changes have occurred. You mention your history and account age a lot, and you seem to take a personal offence to some things that have happened. Resorting to edit warring, threatening to contact Jack, and arguing on the ANB about reports pertaining to your edits have likely contributed to you not feeling adequately welcomed back, because doing these things projects an offensive attitude to other editors that may not end up making them the friendliest of people.

Your messages to other editors have been somewhat confrontational, such as:

  • “Why don’t you agree the recipes were complete.” wikiHow is a collaborative site. Completeness is pretty much a subjective thing, and no article is really “complete”. There will always be edits to make.
  • I do not know how much more I can do to explain something any NABer would or should know.
  • Also, you might want to go read my Village Pump post. You might find it educational.
  • I fully understand wikiHow recipe policy as I helped create it.

And the list could go on. Alex and Batreeq are both exceptionally kind and knowledgeable editors. I do not question their competency, and I fully believe that their passing of the NAB test was not in error. Alex has corrected my own edits after a long break here and there.

Regardless of everything above, I need to reiterate that wikiHow is a collaborative effort. We have as few policies as possible so we don’t restrict the free editing that we like to promote. We do however, have a lot of guidelines. Most patrollers know these policies and guidelines well. All Boosters know them well. I would recommend re-familiarizing yourself with these policies and guidelines. Whether or not you helped write them, things change. Memory fades over time.

In the future, please don’t resort to edit warring or throwing around account age and your contributions. All editors here are equal, and attempting to belittle somebody else that you don’t agree with does not create a welcoming atmosphere.

Again, welcome back to wikiHow. Please feel free to message me on my talkpage, or email me directly if you have any questions or concerns.

I’m going to copy-paste the message I received from Penmouse on my Talk page (which I have reverted), as I’m not sure why it wasn’t posted here: “A stub is not based on how many steps are given to complete a project or recipe. An article can be complete with three steps or a hundred. Personally, I find it much easier to read something that is concise, clear and well-written. I will refer you to the wikiHow User Manual which says: “Put some thought into whether the article is a stub or incomplete. If it is a stub, it has a good beginning and end, but not very much content and needs more. There is also a difference between stubs and short articles. If it is incomplete, the article does not have a very good end and/or cuts off somewhere. Remember that what may seem to you as a stub is another editor’s hard work. If after reading the article you were left confused, unsure, or in doubt, the article should be marked as a stub.” Link: https://www.wikihow.com/Mark-an-Article-as-a-Stub-on-wikiHow The recipes which were tagged as a stub was done by a new admin. Some of the stub tags remained for up to five years and no one bothered to remove the tag or improve the recipes in question. The recipes were complete as they had a intro, ingredients list, complete recipe directions. Recipes are a unique critter at wikiHow and have slightly different guidelines when it comes to how they are handled. 17:20, 13 November 2017 (GMT)” The same message has been sent to Batreeq. I’m at school at the moment and can’t (and don’t wish to) reply.

I agree all contributors are equal. I also agree good faith and civil behavior goes along with being a good contributor. I also understand wikiHow is an evolving and collaborative project. Evolution means you do something to improve or expand an article. It also means you respect author’s by respecting “in use” tags or honoring their contributions. This was not done. It seems some believed I was a newbie here and some decided to exercise their long-term standing to bamboozle a new contributor. This backfired as I know wikiHow and some of the ways old timers treat newbies. 

As to stubs:  This is an often discussed topic and a thorn in many sides. Here is what the wikiHow manual says about stubs:   https://www.wikihow.com/Mark-an-Article-as-a-Stub-on-wikiHow

Here is the link to the cranberry article mentioned:   https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Cranberry-Apple-Relish

The recipe is fairly clear about the steps to take and how to prepare the relish. Just because a recipe is simply written does not mean the recipe is not complete.

Here is the French Bread Pizza history. You will notice the recipe as originally written was complete and was later expanded by many wikiHow authors. This is how the wikiHow writing process is supposed to evolve. Start with a clearly written article and work together collaboratively to make the article better. This does not mean the original article was wrong, it just means it was part of the process.

Link:   https://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Make-French-Bread-Pizza&diff=22715173&oldid=3374221

Here’s the history for Soft Margarine. Again, the article was complete. The article was concise, clearly written and included all the steps needed to complete the recipe.

Link:   https://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Make-Soft-Margarine&diff=23543755&oldid=3416560

Here is a sample of a stub. I am not picking on the author but trying to show an example of what a stub is compared to a short article. In fact, the article was written by an admin who should have a full understanding of wikiHow policies. I have included the page history here:

https://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Know-the-Difference-Between-a-Stub-and-a-Short-Article&diff=23547232&oldid=5464124

I do believe there should be a refresher course as it seems what wikiHow was supposed to be about has been forgotten. Kindness, courtesy and understanding of stubs…

Placing an article as in use is not an excuse to violate the policy, such as the Internal Links Policy . Also, did you have the chance to read the pages I sent you? The last two sentences you wrote directly go against Assuming Good Faith . Wait, didn’t you just refer to all of us “newcomers”?

The history of the article, not diff ( https://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Know-the-Difference-Between-a-Stub-and-a-Short-Article&action=history ) shows that it hasn’t been updated since 2011. Our standards of a stub have changed since then, as we’ve already explained. At the time, that may have been a helpful and informative article, but it no longer is. The Admin who wrote it (and boosted over 100k articles) is less active, and that’s perfectly fine.

Perhaps you need to take the time to understand wikiHow’s policies, guidelines, and standards. As others have stated that memory fades and suggest you re-familiarize yourself with the site. With respect, I say you need a refresher course. We already know what wikiHow is about:  About wikiHow - wikiHow .

Now, we could persist with this discussion for weeks to come, but that won’t do us any good because we’ve fully explained stubs and the difference between policies and guidelines among many other topics. We’ve even provided links to other pages. I don’t thrive on conflict, I try to avoid it, and I’m sure many of our community members don’t either. I suggest one of these options:

  1. Stay with us and get to know the 2017 (not '09) wikiHow, including stubs.
  2. Stay with us, get to re-learn wikiHow, and avoid stub-related matters.
  3. Take a wikiBreak  as long as you need and return when you wish to cooperate.

I conclude that further disputing this matter is pointless as you’ll just dismiss what the 2017 definition of a wH stub truly is. If anyone wishes to provide feedback on the linked articles, they are welcome to, but note that we do have a dedicated page for that:  https://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow\_talk:Article-Review-Team .

Thank you for taking the time to read this message.

Hi Penmouse,

Welcome back - it’s been a long time :) 

Without wading into all the details of this conversation, I want to follow up to communicate that gist of what others who have been more active on wikiHow recently is correct with regard to our current standards and use of the stub template.

Put simply, our expectations of what is and is not a stub article have changed since you were last significantly active. We use stub more broadly than we did in the past, and many articles that would have been considered acceptable a few years back are no longer articles we wish to have show up in Google search. 

The goal of this is to ensure that wikiHow readers receive the most helpful instructions that we are able to provide them. The stub tag also pushes articles into community tools designed to help interested community members find articles that they can improve more easily:  https://www.wikihow.com/Special:EditFinder/Topic

I can understand why you might have been surprised at the expanded usage of the stub template since you were last active – it’s been a significant change. Hope that this helps clarify things somewhat!

Chris I will refer to the wikiHow manual and what it says about stubs. The recipes I posted were not stubs based on the current wikiHow manual.

Link:   https://www.wikihow.com/Mark-an-Article-as-a-Stub-on-wikiHow

The behavior shown by wikiHow contributors is not excusable. Ignoring an “in use” tag is inappropriate. That was done. 

I’ve seen this behavior before and it usually involves over eager inexperienced contributors. Sometimes it involves contributors who should know better. I would love to have an explanation of why I was so poorly treated as within 15 minutes of posting at wikiHow the following happened:

1.  Removal of edits without edit summary or note explaining removal2.  Continued reverts of my work even with a “in use” tag in place

I came to wikiHow in a very good mood desiring to write. Something I love to do. Within one day I was left discouraged and frustrated. What does this say about wikiHow culture?

What happened to assuming good faith, civil behavior, collaboration?

<style type=“text/css”>
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000 }
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>

Finally, it’s not how many steps that are added to an article, it’s the writing that counts. Some authors can write a well-written concise article in a few steps. Some may need more steps to get their idea across. Of course this can be article dependent. 

Concise, accurate writing should be encouraged not discouraged.

I am sure I am not the only person here to think that the discussion over what is considered a stub now for wikiHow articles in 2017 has been discussed to the point were we are going round in circles. @  Chris H has said Put simply, our expectations of what is and is not a stub article have changed since you were last significantly active. We use stub more broadly than we did in the past, and many articles that would have been considered acceptable a few years back are no longer articles we wish to have show up in Google search.  However @ Penmouse has continued to argue the same point over and over ad nauseam.


@ Penmouse   says  I’ve seen this behavior before and it usually involves over eager inexperienced contributors. Sometimes it involves contributors who should know better. I would love to have an explanation of why I was so poorly treated as within 15 minutes of posting at wikiHow the following happened: 1.  Removal of edits without edit summary or note explaining removal
2.  Continued reverts of my work even with a “in use” tag in place

Personally, I feel your comments about the editors you are talking about is grossly unfair and quite simply wrong, those editors have an enormous amount of experience editing wikiHow and alwaysin good faith, collaboration and civil behaviour.   

Again, this is my personal opinion, however I consider your behaviour by in continuing to harp on about this no different to the trollish behaviour that wikiHow sadly gets now and again. I’m all for discussion and collaboration in the spirit of good faith, however it seems to me that it is your behaviour that is not collaborative, nor in good faith and it is time that an Admin closed this thread now.

@SarahB (and others), I wouldn’t consider this trolling. That seems like a rather harsh label in this case. I’ll be honest, I’m not very happy with how this discussion is turning out and I’ll admit that in light of the Talk message this morning, I feel slightly harassed, but calling this trolling is likely just to amplify frustrations:confused:

@ Galactic Radiance like I said, it is my personal opinion and is why the thread needs to be closed now:slight_smile:

Maybe @Chris-H would be able to solve this?

I suspect everyone needs to take a breather and to remember what wikiHow is supposed to be about. Collaboration and creating a user manual anyone can access.

If this argument continues, it is going to place unnecessary stress on all of us, and it has already begun to. This conflict has potential to divide the community. @SarahB , I completely agree with you - your message well stated. We’ve benevolently explained numerous times to the user, and sadly, they seem to want the conflict by denying all that we have communicated to them. @Penmouse should understand what a stub is now by our many lengthy messages, and if he/she does not, then they are welcome to leave a Help Team note or a respectful, civil message for one of our knowledgeable contributors asking a specific question (e.g. if a stub…), not challenging what a stub is and creating an argument.

Please be warned that continued removal of a stub tag on a stub-class article despite being told not to can be considered vandalism. Persistent vandals are almost always blocked, and I do know that the wikiHow community often gives multiple chances especially if the user has been registered for a while. I would hate for it to come to that, so please refrain from being argumentative @Penmouse . If an administrator can please close this thread, the community can be on its way and resume the focus on contributing and collaborating in a constructive way.:slight_smile: