Forum:New article rating

I have been thinking a while for what really separates a stub from a standard article. In terms of wikia itself, "stub" is a technical term referring to pages that are below a certain size in bytes (the actual size eludes me, I recall it was like 500 bytes or around that number). In our terms, it can be either a short page, a page with poor quality, or an incomplete page (or in the most drastic cases, all three).

A standard article, by contrast, can still technically be a stub but fulfill everything required to be a standard article -- or even cover everything it's supposed to, but with crappy quality, which may make it more "stub"-worthy.

So I've come up with an idea: how about we divide the stub category into multiple categories? So instead of just stub and standard, we'd have one for "short standard" pages, which are below X amount of bytes in size, but fulfill everything a larger article would; a class for "incomplete", which means they would be of proper length and quality, but are lacking in terms of content -- that is to say, they don't cover everything they are supposed to -- and "poor" pages, ones that have poor quality but are of sufficient length and content.

Thoughts? At the very least, I think it'd be less confusing to determine between the two types of articles if we had a "poor quality" article class, and reserved stubs for the actual stubs. Йура 17:59, February 2, 2012 (UTC)