Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2005

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Proposing_new_stubs_-_procedure sais that 'a good number' of stubs is required. Weasel word extreme! Please replace it with the customary number used in decision  making. What is a good number? Do I have to least 10 or 100 relevant stubs? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording is probably used because there is no fixed agreed-upon numbers. 80 is what's normally used for geography stubs, 60 is often the threshold for other ones. 50 might work if the existing stubs are scattered about in different categories, or if the parent categories is desperately in need of splitting, and larger categories can't be found. FWIW, WP:SFD says at least 50, but that's for keeping, not creating. --Mairi 17:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The number also depends on whether there is a WikiProject attached to the particular stub proposal, and the size of the parent category which needs splitting. There is no precise number - as Mairi says, it varies widely from case to case - hence the lack of an actual number in the listed procedure. A good rule of thumb would be at least 60, and preferably over 80, but each case is unique. Grutness...wha? 22:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to be more specific, if that's going to be feasible.  At least as a baseline from which to argue up or down.  Otherwise we leave ourselves open to a handful of editors demanding special pleading for their own horribly under-sized category, citing other such as precedents, etc.  I don't mind factoring in the considerations Grutness mentions, but if we can do so as systematically as possible, that'd be good.  I think I'd like to see 60 established as a "hard floor" as a creation criterion, and some smaller number, say around 25 or 30, if there's a specific attached WP.  Anything falling significantly short of that, without apparent scope to be populated further in the short term (that is, by sorting, not by "I'll be creating lots and lots, sometime soon", I think we should look into considering to be "speediable".  Alai 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 60 for creating (30 if there's an associated wikiproject) and 25 for deletion sound reasonable figures as that "hard floor" to me - as long as there's the added caveat that beyond these base figures individual circumstances may be taken into account. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a good number

message: I've sketched out a possible project "to do" page, to deal with miscellaneous pending business that tends to clog up this project page in particular, while beyond the "waiting period", no actively being discussed any more, and with some sort of apparent consensus.  Anyone think this can be made workable?  Alai 03:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And why not go so far as to actually put it to use? ;) Aecis praatpaal 12:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factor out concluded discussions to "to do"? 

message: There's an annoying format error on the project page - if one clicks on a section edit, it offers you the next section below, rather than the section one wants to edit. Anyone know how to deal with it? - MPF 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a side effect of the archiving I've been doing this weekend.  If I've archived a section between the time you loaded the page and the timr you click on the edit link, then there is one less section and that section 100 you wanted to edit is now section 99.  Reloading the page should solve the problem. Caerwine 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Format error

message: The proposals page is too long. We should change things to shorten the page. U see, the length of the page shows a problem. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to sort stubs, and I believe we spend too much time discussing how to create stub categories. I think we should remove the one-week-wait rule. Maybe the stub type hierarchy will be worse, but we'll all spend more time on writing articles. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page too long 

message: *The proposals page is too long, but not because of the one week rule.  What we need is something to make it easier to archive discussions when they are done. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments of those who disagree 

message: Well looks like this is up for MfD.  I think this page is useful, and but it is not a policy, I've added the guideline marker to the page, not in an attempt to give it more authority, but in an attempt to show that it is not a policy, if anyone thinks this is too bold, feel free to remove it, but please comment here. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think the guideline marker belongs here. WP:STUB is already a guideleine, and it says basically the same things, and points here. Conscious 07:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MFD|MfD]]