geni writes:
"Or we can hope that the person createing substubs (these are not subs)
will get a clue and create [[FTSE listings]]."
It isn't going to happen. Moreover it seems to run against the wiki
philosophy. Article creation is *supposed* to be cooperative. If an
editor comes along and decides something needs merging, he should do it.
He can hardly do it if someone speedies it in the meantime!
I'd take issue with your designation of the share index article as a
substub. The article was short, but that didn't stop it explaining
adequately what the index is and giving an external link as a reference
from which it could be extended indefinitely. Thus it cannot possibly be
described as a substub.
By the way, I take issue with one or two of the example substubs on the
Wikipedia:Substub article. For instance: "Anthony J. Drexel Biddle (1876
- 1948) was the man the play and film The Happiest Millionaire was based
upon" is a perfectly good stub. It gives Biddle's full name and his
lifespan, and an inkling of where you might have heard that name before
(The Happiest Millionnaire is a fictionalized biography and features
Biddle under that name). The stub is already useful in itself, and
absolutely nothing else would be required for any reasonably competent
editor to expand it indefinitely.
Once I had a go a storting out
Articles that need to be wikified. by the end of the week I had as far
as makeing sure everything starting with the letter A was either
wikified of on VFD.
Well yes, but that's because there's only one of you and the Library of
Babel is truly vast. If you found any dross in there I hope you tagged it
for deletion. If you didn't then the fact that the text wasn't (horrors!)
wikified doesn't detract so much from its informational value that this
must be viewed as a serious problem. Every article has a search box into
which the reader can type anything he wants to know about.