Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Template:Substub

message: Oughtn't the category name be plural?  That's the standard form for categories.  The category contains "articles which are substubs", not "articles which are substub".  The latter is ungrammatical.  --Eequor 16:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The message is not POV, do you really think that there's a substub anywhere that reflects well on the info in Wikipedia? Mike∞Storm 18:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a statement about how something appears is POV.  Saying these articles reflect poorly upon Wikipedia is an open invitation for speedy deletion.  --Eequor 18:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... good point. You're right. Mike∞Storm 23:43, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "The first step to becoming a full article" doesn't seem quite right to me.  This isn't the first step for most other articles, so, in particular, the first step isn't really correct.  Also, in my opinion, the reader oughtn't be reminded that the article can't get any worse.  --Eequor 22:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine to me. The first step is to create a beginning which can attract the attention of others, notably ia search engines finding the article. It's a small beginning but still a beginning. Jamesday 09:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on wording

message: Substubs should continue to be distinct from stubs.
# Eequor 20:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep

message: Substubs should not be distinct from stubs.
# Michael Snow 21:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: The substub has been protected for the purpose against vandalism, since many pages use this stub, it should not be changed frequently anyway.  If you feel that the template message needs to be corrected, please indicate so on this talk page or leave a note on my talk page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In line with suggestions at WP:WSS, I was going to reduce the size of the text on the template  by using the "small" function . It's a minor change, but it would affect a template that's currently on about 4100 articles...  Grutness|hello?  08:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism protection 

message: I'd like to suggest re-opening the survey on retention or deletion of the substub template and category. All the arguments listed above still hold true, but there has been one significant change since the survey was first held - the number of substubs. When the (inconclusive) first voite was taken, there were 4000 substubs. since then, I and other members of Wikiproject stub sorting have been moving them to their respective stub subcategories, where they are far more likely to see actuion by editors, or merging or vfd'ing them, whichever seemed most fitting. There are now fewer than 200 substubs, and the number of un-subcategorised stubs has dropped considerably, probably from about 25,000 to under 4,000 - a drop of nearly 85% (exact figures are not easy to ascertain). As such, this is probably the most appropriate time to assess whether there is any need to have two separate types of stub template, stub and substub, or whether it is better to merge them into one group.  Grutness|hello?  07:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update there are currently no substubs.  Grutness|hello?  12:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey again

message: This is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of this template. There were 20 votes for deletion, 8 votes for keep and 3 votes to redirect to . Joe D (t) 19:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for deletion 

message: If you're searching histories of articles that once were marked , it appears that the article has been deleted, rather than the template. Very confusing; took me a long time to figure out what was going on at Projective set, especially given that immediately after the template is removed, the article turns into a redirect. I was looking through old VfD logs to see what had happened and coming up blank. Any way to change the content of the template to make the situation clear? --Trovatore 06:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I've fixed it now; hope it's OK with everybody. --Trovatore 06:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used "noinclude", which means that it won't appear in the articles when you view them.  I reckon that'll be the best solution.  violet/riga (t) 21:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This template is still getting added to pages occasionally.  Should we put a note in the template that appears in the article saying to not include it or remove it or something? --ssd 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unintended consequence of current appearance