Wikipedia talk:Most wanted stubs

message: I have restocked the list with 100 items from a user report: User:Topbanana/Reports/This is one of the most linked to stubs. I'm working on getting a list of all most-wanted short articles, but until then this will do nicely. The drawbacks:
*Only four articles are actually less than 100 characters, as the page is supposed to be.
*Only pages with  are included, so unmarked stubs are still unseen.
Hopefully I (or someone wanting $10) will have a chance to run the original query. Between now and then, this list gives plenty of opportunities. Just as before, if you expand an article to the point that it is no longer a stub, remove the stub message and remove it from the list. Happy writing, --Ben Brockert 02:33, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
:Do we remove them, or strike-them through?  How long until we can get this updated again? Bo-Lingua 17:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restocked the list

message: I was intrigued by the fact that so many topics along the lines of:  XXX BC had the same number of referenced links... Upon checking it out, this whole group needs to be considered a superstub of sorts.  This is an worthy attempt to build a timeline of history along the lines of an almanac.  If there is a 'wikiwide' communciation means, especially one that can be used to target history interested parties such as my humble self, I have a suggestion to clean this up expeditiously.  Ask any and all members, for a two to three month genesis, to make an edit toward this worthy goal (entries are essentially 'bulleted single line items') inside the appropriate decade anytime they run across a dated historical event.  After the genesis period, 'stub' can probably be safely removed from said articles -- some decades were (apparently <g>) boring so that little of historical note happened.  This should shorten next years list significantly, assuming success in mobilizing the masses!  A project like this needs publicity.  High kudos to whomever concieved the idea! Fabartus 02:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Calls to Arms 

message: * A better definition of what makes a stub a stub may be needed - perhaps anything marked as a stub + anything shorter than 250 chars?  - TB 10:07, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
::I would just go with anything that's actually tagged with a template that has "stub" at the end of the title.  Anything that's short and not tagged as a stub should show up on the "Should this be a stub?" page. Anything that's long and tagged as a stub should show up on the "Is this really a stub?" page. -- Beland 21:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining a stub

message: # Frederick_Law_Olmsted (151 links) was on the list at 350. It's a nice long article that isn't tagged as a stub, so I removed it from the list. Metarhyme 06:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing a listing

message: The link numbers have no significance whatsoever. Most of the hundreds of links come from user-pages and talk pages. Why are they even included in this statistic? How do links from a user-page that is probably accessed once every three months warrant the attention of anybody but the user? I think the talk and user namespaces should NOT be searched when these numbers are gathered. Mstroeck 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most wanted stubs" is a waste of time, keep user-pages and talk-pages out of the statistics! 

message: Hasn't there been a database dump since January?  Or do we only get a refresh when everything is crossed out?  Or, does someone manually do this?  Or a bot?  Should there be a bot if there isn't one?  Would a bot sophisticated enough to do this mind-numbing task eventually learn and grow until it tried to delete everyone's userboxes whenever Jimbo sneezed? --James S. 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very stale!!  Personally, I'd like to see a fresh list, in order to find good candidates for  collaboration of the week. -Scottwiki 10:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stale!! 

message: I followed a number of links in the rather lengthy list of most wanted stubs, only to find that they weren't stubs.  They had been expanded to full articles (or were articles to begin with?).
As is the list seems rather pointless....
angrykeyboarder 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should just delete all the articles(from the list) that are struck through. That would reduce the size of the list a bit, and make it a bit easier to manage.dbalsdon 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just manually removed all the struck through articles from the list. I don't see how this would be a problem, but if it is, just revert, and please accept my apologies. dbalsdon 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just done another purge. -- Beland 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woefully Out of Date 

message: I have worked with a few individuals to form a project to eliminate poor stubs and duplicate content in favor of more comprehensive articles. I agree some articles will always be "stub" in size, but those that are suspect to development in more than 1 article for the same subject matter should be merged, and maybe split off again when deemed necessary.
WP:ʃ
Cwolfsheep 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Integration: solution to some stubs 

message: I noticed that the rank of the majority of stubs is skewed by includion of them in certain templates. It is one thing that a term is used in the text of an article; it is totally another if it is in a brainless list of small towns in an even smaller canton of Szitzerland. 
I have also (Kmarquez96 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on this at WT:MWA.  In summary, difficult, but may be fudgeable.  Alai 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usability?

message: Right, I (Kmarquez96 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Casliber/Stub contest]]