Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 8

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa,_Ontario
still a Stub? or a Short article?
I'm in favour of the latter. JimmmyThePiep 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the article (and the stub) a few months ago. I only added a couple of lines. Somebody put in a decent enough chunk, wouldn't you say? (I'm rather glad I started it up, because now there's all this stuff I didn't know before.) JimmmyThePiep 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like a pretty good article now! :) Grutness...wha? 06:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Somebody Dbl-Check this? 

message: Thought y'all might like to see this: ! Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I thought wikiproject links in articles were bad...  Alai 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How ''not'' to stub articles... 

message: Could perhaps a set of summary instructions -- as a numbered "recipe," for example -- be added near the top of the project page?  It took me many minutes of "scanning" just to figure out where on the page to put the stub; the info is "hidden" in a long discussion on defining "stub".  The "recipe" could start w/ a warning like "first make sure the stub-tag is appropriate -- see below".  Biography peer review has a nice clear example of the kind of instructions I'm talking about.
Overall this page seems overlong -- the whole second half is a detailed how-to on creating new stub categories, but it says you shouldn't do this at all w/o first getting consensus at another page.  Shouldn't there just be a link to that page and a warning? thx--Turangalila (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my first thought is that you didn't read the next section of this page :) The new draft has a nutshell template at the top, BTW, and with further editing is now 30% shorter than WP:STUB. Grutness...wha? 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request simpler instructions 

message: After concerns raised above about the complexity of WP:STUB, I have written a rough draft to shorten it. The new draft contains the same information, but is 25% shorter. It also removes some of the information on how to create stub templates - information which is in part responsible for the large number of "discoveries" and is also responsible (due to the misreading by some editors) of the need to trawl the non-existent  for stubs "about A". Please feel free to make any comments, positive or negative on my new draft (User:Grutness/WP Stub rewrite (draft) at its talk page. (crossposted to WP talk:WSS and Template talk:Stub) Grutness...wha? 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think this would move this fast, or would have popped in sooner.  Thumbs belatedly up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft of WP:STUB 

message: I'm sure there is a simple reason for this that I am overlooking, but could someone explain why the newly formed :Category:Veterinary medicine stubs does not contain many of the articles classified as veterinary medicine stubs?  See the above category in comparison to the list of articles with that stub template.  Thanks.  --Joelmills 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did things too fast for the server.  By the time the server around to noticing the change on most of the articles, the combination of the template move and the change in the category caused it to get confused, with most of the articles being listed as having Template:Veterinary-med-stub as a double square bracket link rather than a double curly bracket transclusion of Template:Zoology-med-stub.  A minor edit to cause the server to look again at the articles linked from Template:Zoology-med-stub should probably do the trick, and if not getting a bot to replace Zoology-med-stub with Veterinary-med-stub in the articles definitely will.  As a general rule, one should give the servers time to adjust between editing a template and moving that same template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Alai has a bot (named Alaibot that's authorized to do stub sorting related bot work.  Leave him a note on his talk page and it normally will get done fairly quickly.  Might be other bots that would be willing to do the work, but if so I can't remember them and haven't needed to. Caerwine Caer’s whines
Thanks.  --Joelmills 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, and you're welcome.  Where was the fire, though?  I'm a bit bemused that the renaming had a "non-admin closure and change of venue to speedy":  is our reputation for tardy closures already quite that bad?  Alai 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you were, I was just "wondering aloud".  I should probably just ask TAM/Iceflow, if my curiosity gets too much.  Alai 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub category not working properly? 

message: Since it's inactive and its template has even been long deleted, how about deleting mention of it from the page? Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure... why not. --Sn0wflake 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Substub]] 

message: The article says "directly copying other sources is a violation of copyright".  It may be improper (plagiarism) but it isn't always a violation of copyright.  If the source is in the public domain, or the license terms of the source permit unrestricted copying, then directly copying is not a violation. Paul Koning 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, of course - a good point. I've amended the page to deal with this. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct copying is not always a copyright violation