Category talk:Stubs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

NOTE: Most of the discussion relating to this and other stub categories occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. You may wish to consider leaving a note there rather than here.

---

Old talk: Category talk:Stubs/Archive 1

Contents 1 removal of category from UTC pages 2 Why don't you just 3 "Very Large Stub Category" notice addition 4 Zero 5 Stub on user pages 6 Cleared

[edit] removal of category from UTC pages

Suggest removal of stubs category from all the UTC pages - they are really linked redirection pages. Scottkeir 04:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're more likely to get a response by taking this request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, or maybe Wikipedia talk:Stub. The category talk page isn't really the place for it. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks, suggestion now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. So many talk and discussion pages, hard to know which to pick! Scottkeir 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't you just

Change the stub template to make it say something about how you categorize stubs now, and link to the stub categorization page?

A lot of editors dislike referring to the inner workings of Wikipedia in articles, so it would quickly be reverted. In fact, there's a specific guideline not to link more than is necessary to Wiki-space - Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference). Grutness...wha? 01:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, the subtlety is what got me intrigued in wikipedia in the first place :) Xhin 22:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the whole idea of stubs is a self-reference, no? A slightly more explanatory version, though, might encourage better self-stub-sorting.--Pharos 12:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. If you added something to the stub template saying something like "this template is deprecated, please choose one of the recognized stub types instead, then the stub sorting work would be way reduced. Stifle 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I at first had similar thoughts, but on the discussion page for the template, it was basically suggested that it remain this way so as to prevent inexperienced users from trying to be too helpful and in essence make things harder. Besides, don't you want to do some fun sorting anyway? Jfingers88 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth to that (the first part :) - Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion is frequently flooded with invientive new stub templates which some newbie has decided to create in order to help out. And there are definitely quite a number of stubs which have been assigned to...erm, shall we say surprising stub categories. Though it's good to have as many people helping out with stub sorting as possible, the whole stub system has got so convoluted that it's good if people have some idea of what categories there are before they start. Some might point out that this is a flaw in the whole stub-sorting system, and it's a justifiable comment, but given that there are an estimated 1/3 of a million stubs on wikipedia, the classification system is necessarily big (which is why WP:WSS/ST takes so long to load!). The fact that we managed to keep all but a couple of hundred stubs categorised at any one time is quite a feat in itself. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Very Large Stub Category" notice addition

Is this really necessary? By all accounts, this category is not large, let alone "very large". Using the template only serves to dilute the impact it might otherwise have. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Especially since the stub category is empty right now. Jfingers88 00:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. The reason that notice is often there is that this category fluctuates enormously - sometimes it'll suddenly get flooded with a few hundred articles, although a lot of the time it is nearly empty. That notice comes and goes from it, but because of the rapid fluctuation sometimes it's there when the category is very small rather than very large. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero

I'm new here to the project, and I've been working like crazy getting rid of all these stubs. I just thought I'd never see it blank :p Amazing. SynergeticMaggot 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It happens every now and again (but not often enough :) Good to see yet another new stub-sorter, BTW! Grutness...wha? 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well as long as I have nothing in particular to do, I'll be a-stub sorten :p SynergeticMaggot 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Keep up the good work. It's nice to see the "Empty Category" notice here once in a while, though it usually takes a ton of work. Jfingers88 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. Finally I emptied it. Too tired to shout hooray. :D Picaroon9288|ta co 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's empty again. --andrew 06:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC) ...and again --andrewI20^Talk 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gotten big again... NauticaShades^(talk) 16:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Empty again --Skapur 16:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And empty again --- Skapur 03:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Empty once more --- NielsenGW 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No offence folks, but... it fills, it empties. Unless it suddenly gets really big, we don't really need to keep reporting its size here! Grutness...wha? 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Suddenly REALLY BIG, film at 11...Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For those keeping track, it's been macheted back to 800 stubs. We're getting there... Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub on user pages

If, like me, you get fed up with having to subst stub templates on user pages, you might like to know that I've just made {{Stubbed user}} - a template that can be subst'ed onto user talk pages to quickly explain what you've just done. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleared

Cleared on Saturday, March 31 2007. Just thought I'd show off a little. ;) Thanks to everyone else went through these articles. Black-Velvet 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)