Forum:Proposed addition to stub policy

Following the latest cleanup on Nagrand (alternate universe), I thought of adding to WP:STUB (probably with a link from WP:MOS) something along the lines of the following:
 * "Do not add multiple sections to an article that are simply tagged as stubs."

This is to prevent making articles that are blatantly just to make a boilerplate that just reads "If you find any information, add to this section, but until then we'll just mark this as empty".

An alternative would be to have the sections in the wiki code, but hiding them using.

Vote booth
✅

Votes

 * No multiple stub sections:


 * Hide stub sections:


 * No change:

Comments
I thought the point of doing that for future content was to prepare it for the when the information came available, thus keeping the articles in a standard format. I agree that creating subsections with just a stub for live content is frowned on, but preparing an article which is not live yet I find helpful especially since all those sections for zone articles will be filled. Unlike character articles with novel section stubs added that may never get information. 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I was mostly referring to articles such as the Nagrand one, but maybe you prefer that the stub sections should be hidden when it comes to future content? Either way, when there's articles with multiple stub sections like in the example, they shouldn't be shown at all. -- 22:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the other way around for me: at least the novel information could be added now (or at least I hope those stub tags appear only for actual content in released novels). Having sections proclaim "insert information here!" is annoying if there's no such information at the moment. This seems much worse than a potential discrepancy in how the article content is formatted arising in the future. — foxlit (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I am talking about is brainchild of Mordecay94/TheMordecay that has been talked about on Coobra's talk page. You know... the needless sections, the redundant labeling, and the stubs in place of contributions.-- 02:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to write up a separate proposal to cover that -- or perhaps an addition to WP:MOS that'd describe how articles drawing from multiple sources are supposed to look (do we try to section by source? section by time? have a single biography section? what level of detail should character articles aim for?). Blocking empty stub sections seems like a very narrow fix to a very different problem. — foxlit (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)