Wikipedia talk:Stub categories

message: As a personal note, you will reach more attention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting than on this page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: I don't really understand the directions for creating new stub categories, so I'm reluctant to try my hand at that just yet.  Even so, I've put category-stubs on a fair number of stub articles in the A's and B's today, and I saw the following possible-tags to go among the things we've got:
* A general Culture tag, including
*# fashion
*# dance
*# drama
*# slang terms (currently I'm moving them to lang-stub)
*# children's literature
* A general Transport tag, including
*# a Public-Transport tag
* among the Science tags, 
*# an Anatomy tag
*# a Mycology tag
*# an ocean-studies tag
* In the Religion tags, 
*# a Buddhism tag
*# a Pagan tag
* In the Region tags,
*# a general Europe tag
*# a general South America tag
*# a Balkans tag
*# a Middle East tag
* A general Education tag, including:
*# the existing school tag
*# the existing University tag
A general reorganization of Region tags in general might be very useful --  Each continent country could have a geo tag, a gov tag, a cult(ure) tag, a trans(port) tag, and a tech tag to help sort articles faster.
These are just suggestions -- not trying to rock the boat.  Andrew Watt 04:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Stub Categories

message: Why is the limit as high as 100 articles? This doesn't reflect current practices at all, and it's quite a burdern to make sure that there even are 100 easy-to-find articles for a specific category without actually creating it so that you have a way to label them. (In the absense of a really functional search feature, that is.) 30, 40, even 50 would be much closer to what is being done practically.
Most of the existing categories quite easily could contain over 100, probably hundreds of articles, but it's difficult to actually find that many articles to put into them all at once. We desperately need more categories to get the category sizes down; we want to avoid purely frivolous categorizations, but we don't want to prevent folks contributing because the restrictions are unreasonable. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 articles??? 

message: Could someone explain to me the reason for categorising stubs in this way. What's wrong with simply 'stub'? If someone's going to expand a stub, it should already be pretty clear to them what sort of article it is! Treborbassett 22:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are these for? 

message: Has anyone noticed continuing server errors/timeouts/delays when loading WP:SC? Using the shortcut or the actual project page name makes no difference. For the last few weeks, I've had about a 20% success rate of getting the page to load at all. When it does load, it takes a good five mintues. Feco 19:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apr 2005 Performance Issues 

message: The message:
To avoid unnecessary redirects and reverts, please discuss all new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria prior to creation of new stubs and placement in articles or tables. All such articles should be placed in the Category "Stubs to be discussed".
Shouldn't the message say "all new stub templates"?  I thought that anyone could create stubs for articles they need, but it's the templates that we need to be more careful/organized about.
RampagingCarrot 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect use of "Stub"?