Category talk:Stubs/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't articles marked with the stub template implicitly be members of this category? The notice could include a link to it.
Mr. Jones 11:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused.  There is a link to the category in the template.  Articles marked as stubs are in the category.  What part of this do you think is missing? --ssd 03:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Note that articles that were marked as stubs before the link was added to the category won't be listed here until their next edit. As many articles are not yet converted from the old msg format to the new template format, so many will be added in the near future as they are converted. --ssd 03:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implicit membership 

message: How about giving the larger letters their own categories: S-Stub, for example?  --Ingoolemo
:What I mean is, automatically have the template add (second letter).  That way, you input it as , and it busts up the category a bit.  •→Iñgólemo←• 04:02, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
::This category scheme (splitting by first letter) seems to be not liked in general.  I think it is a much better idea to split by topic than split by first letter if it is going to be done manually.  If it is going to be done automatically, it should be a software modification that implements it, not a change in the category name. --ssd 15:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories 

message: *The category was listed for deletion again but failed to reach a consensus to delete so kept. The following is the discussion up to the point of closure and should not be modified.
Rename to Category:Stubs. Neutralitytalk 17:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Question ... doesn't this present a technical challenge considering the number of items in the category? Courtland 18:28, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
*No change.  This has come up before, and it lost before.  The stub category is obsolete.  The only change that should be made to it is emptying it by either extending articles or sorting stub articles into more specific stub categories.  It is not worth the overhead to rename something that really should be slowly phased out. --ssd 20:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: March 6, 2005

message: Why do stubs not feed into this category?  Is it just because that would make that category too big?  If so, how can we get an up to date list of all stubs? Superm401 01:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They used to. I haven't found the discussion that explains why they now are not. You can find a list of what links to the stub template at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you cannot.  Whatlinks here only shows 500 results.  There are way more than 500 stubs.  Bacchiad 01:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not in Category

message: At least WP:WSS is making a bit of a dent. At present there are only some 3500 stubs in :Category:Stub - still too many but way down on what it was. Everyone seems to be attacking the same parts of the alphabet, though - over 2000 of those stubs start with S or T!   Grutness|hello?  06:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whisper it quietly, lest Wikipedia hears us, but there are now only 2441 articles in Category:Stub!  Grutness|hello?  07:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now only 1546. Remuel 08:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some good news at last

message: ...is not disappearing from the list, even though there's no stub tag there.  Any idea why? --Jemiller226 20:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably got a bad page history (accidentally created twice or similar). Admins can normally fix that sort of thing, but this one has block-compression problems, so it can't be fixed at the moment, and will have to hang around for a while. Sooner or later it'll be worth having another look at to fix it.  Grutness|hello?  01:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katz's Deli... 

message: Does anyone else agree that it is ok to edit user pages to remove the stub tag? as it interferes with our lovely stub list. I'm sure no one would mind, especially if we left an edit note explaining why. Bluemoose 10:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would suggest doing is creating a new stub that looks exactly like the regular stub template but without including a category (called userpage-stub or something). Then politely suggest to each user on their Talk page that they change from the old stub template to the new one. Although this is a Wiki and you can edit almost any page, it is generally considered impolite to edit User pages except for typos unless they are someone like User:Jimbo Wales who says right on his user page to go ahead and edit it. BlankVerse ∅ 10:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, asking them on their talk pages is a good idea. There are other "stub" pages such as Wikipedia:Yahoo! searching Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Google searching Wikipedia, I personally think these could just be speedy deleted, as they have no useful content, and i doubt anyone knows they even exist. Bluemoose 14:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not sure they fit. You might have to submit them at WP:VFD. If only those pages could be a form, like the ones that show up when the developers disable the Wikipedia search engine. (Of course you could just put a Delete because tag on the article and see if an admin will delete it anyway, but I'm not really recommending you do that. ;-) BlankVerse ∅ 09:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Asking them is a very good idea. Some of these stubs are there for valid reasons, such as creating dummy pages to use as templates (the other meaning) for real articles. Then again, if we can find the right subcategory for these dummy articles, it would make sense to change them over anyway!  Grutness|hello?  10:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User pages with stub tags 

message: This category should be renamed to "Uncategorized stubs". --SuperDude 02:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should, but it's still so heavily used that any change to the template is likely to cause serious server problems, and in any case due to the way templates work you'd need to do a null edit on every stub in the category to get it to move to the new category. That's one of the reasons why planned moves to :Category:Stubs have never been accepted. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename this category 

message: I have been reducing the list of uncategorized stubs by changing the stub templates on the articles.  Will other Wikipedians help me on this mission? --SuperDude 03:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry - you're not the only one working on this! :) Grutness...wha? 05:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed. You might want to look up Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. --TheParanoidOne 08:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction of uncategorized stubs