Template talk:Notstub

message: An interesting idea. However, I'm not *sure* if it's needed. Right now, we seem to be in the progress of dividing up stubs into such categories as geo-stub, bio-stub and hist-stub. Eventually, hopefully rather soon, being a "stub" won't be as useless as it is now. There will be separate categories for every kind of stub. As for your examples on the Pump: 
*Juturna doesn't appear to be a stub to me, and shouldn't be marked as such. I think it has all the relevant info, it has an infobox (that's a major point), it's categorized, and it is more than one paragraph.
*Eanmund doesn't look like a stub at all. 
*Setnakhte looks a little stubby, but probably isn't. This and Fontus are the only ones I'm split on. Setnakhte looks big enough to not be a stub, but I don't know; Fontus is far too small to not be a stub, yet probably has no more information to add.
So I can see where you're coming from on this. At the moment, I'm not sure I have an answer. I think the best answer is probably to leave a comment on the Talk page, and I'll tell you why: Simply saying "not a stub" doesn't mean much. You have to tell people why it's not a stub. Like, for Fontus, say it was a minor god and not much is known. Or, for Setnakhte, same deal, all that is known is in the article. THEN AGAIN, such a message could discourage people from editing it if somehow new information is found.
This is indeed a conundrum. However, I would say we should err on the side that promotes editing - and that would be to maintain the status quo. That is, either stub it or don't. For articles that aren't stubs, remove the message. If someone persists, say why. ... I dunno, just my rambling thoughts. Perhaps, as the stub categorization gets deeper, Fontus will be hit with myth-stub and some Romanologist will come along with a bit of new info. I don't know. Again with the rambling. I think I just contributed nothing at all. :P Because I CAN see the benefit of this, but I think the costs might outweight the benefits. Can you come up with any more articles that would be truly deserving of {notastub}? --Golbez 06:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Ah! That's the first I've heard of Template:hist-stub et al. I like this solution much better than a generalized "notstub" template. These custom stub messages are poorly advertized, though. They're not mentioned at all on Wikipedia:Perfect stub article — in fact, the only places they're mentioned (that I could find) is User:Angela/useful stuff and Template:stubs!
:The only category stub templates I've encountered previously have been Template:Poke-stub (ugh) and Template:Critic-stub, a stub for the Critic articles (like we need more than one), encountered on WP:TFD, accompanied with appropriately snide commentary about such granular category stub templates.
:I'm withdrawing my suggestion for using Template:notstub in favor of increasing awareness of category stub messages. Perhaps Wikipedia:Category stubs should be created and linked to? • Benc • 20:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Docu had created Wikipedia:Stub categories on 9 September 2004. Unfortunately, it is still largely an orphan page — I'll get busy de-orphaning it. • Benc • 01:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant with category stub templates? 

message: The explanatory text mentions four "prime examples", namely, the articles Juturna, Fontus,  Eanmund, and Setnakhte. Of these, now the first two are stub-marked, while the fourth is developed to a considerably longer article. Only Eanmund remains as an appropriate example. If possible, perhaps someone could try to find more permanent examples?
Of course, we never have a guarantee that new development will not occur and thus will not motivate longer articles. Seemingly, the present article Setnakhte was prolonged as a result of new archaeological finds the last years. Still... JoergenB (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable examples?