Category talk:Stubs/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There are active discussions on this here and at template talk:stub#Stub Category and Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Should templates be used to add articles to categories?

Contents

Implicit membership

Shouldn't articles marked with the stub template implicitly be members of this category? The notice could include a link to it. Mr. Jones 11:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. There is a link to the category in the template. Articles marked as stubs are in the category. What part of this do you think is missing? --ssd 03:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note that articles that were marked as stubs before the link was added to the category won't be listed here until their next edit. As many articles are not yet converted from the old msg format to the new template format, so many will be added in the near future as they are converted. --ssd 03:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. Mr. Jones 13:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should this category be used

Instead of this category, I feel we should use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub or the stub display setting on Special:Preferences. -- User:Docu

Whatlinkshere only shows a very few number of articles. The stub display setting only shows articles whose links you are looking at. How would you suggest we get a large list of articles from which a potential article writer would pick? --ssd 14:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If you choose the Category of your preference, you can highlight the stubs by setting the "Threshold for stub display" on Special:Preferences. Obviously, if you want them all on one page, a category (preferably defined on (Template:Stub)) may be better, as it's not possible to advance further then the 500 first results on Special:Whatlinkshere. -- User:Docu
I supose it would be useful if all stubs were put in a category...any category...that in itself would hopefully make it more likely they'd be fixed. (Yes, I do use the stub threshold option.) --ssd 12:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I am completely opposed to using the stub threshold as the sole method of finding stubs. Many short articles are complete, as they contain nearly all information available on an important but small topic. Others are very long and yet very incomplete -- for example, authors with complete booklists, but no bio, or complete bio's, but no booklist... You just can't pick out stubs based on length alone. --ssd 03:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It works indeed better for short pages and depends on the threshold you choose. Did you try Wikipedia:Shortpages? -- User:Docu
I hope you are not proposing Shortpages to be a list of all stubs. --ssd 04:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Too large?

True or false: this is too large to be a valid Wikipedia category? 66.245.106.175 16:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this category. This will help editors find stub articles that they may be able to add to. It serves a very important purpose, and should not be removed just because of its size. -- LGagnon 18:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It may be big, but its valid. But of course your welcome to make this category smaller by fixing the articles. . Krik 08:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Very true. You know what else is true, there is no need for this. Who's actually using this to fix stubs? Could that person(s) make do with this Media:dori.20040704.stubs.txt (just copy and paste it in a page to get the links, for me it was timing out since I'm on dialup) instead? Dori | Talk 04:02, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
This category allows us to find stubs based on if they have the {{stub}} message (which contains the link to this category). Does that text file update itself in such a way? If not, then it is not as useful for the same purpose. -- LGagnon 04:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Do you need something that's up to the minute or would something that's one or two month old suffice? Are you telling me that you'll be done with the 56368 stubs in that text file before two months? Oh, and by the way, despite not being up to the minute, my text file is more complete than the category which only has 11295 articles. Dori | Talk 13:59, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I think it is actually more important (for stubs) that things get removed real time than added real time. There are enough stubs (obviously) that if they aren't all listed, it's ok, we'll get to them eventually. But if there's non-stubs in the list, it's pretty frustrating to go hunting through it for something to work on and hit one non-stub after another... It's also very important that the list actually get updated periodically, and not stagnate forever waiting for some person to bother to update it. --ssd 04:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Subcategories

How about giving the larger letters their own categories: S-Stub, for example? --Ingoolemo

What I mean is, automatically have the template add [[Category:Stubs beginning with (letter)|(second letter)]]. That way, you input it as {{stub|''letter''|''second letter''}}, and it busts up the category a bit. •→Iñgólemo←• 04:02, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
This category scheme (splitting by first letter) seems to be not liked in general. I think it is a much better idea to split by topic than split by first letter if it is going to be done manually. If it is going to be done automatically, it should be a software modification that implements it, not a change in the category name. --ssd 15:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion discussion

March 6, 2005

  • The category was listed for deletion again but failed to reach a consensus to delete so kept. The following is the discussion up to the point of closure and should not be modified.

Rename to Category:Stubs. Neutralitytalk 17:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Question ... doesn't this present a technical challenge considering the number of items in the category? Courtland 18:28, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • No change. This has come up before, and it lost before. The stub category is obsolete. The only change that should be made to it is emptying it by either extending articles or sorting stub articles into more specific stub categories. It is not worth the overhead to rename something that really should be slowly phased out. --ssd 20:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not obsolete. There are always going to be articles that are not easily sorted. I think we should mark it for renaming the next time it is discontinued and then re-added, if that makes any sense. It obviously should be stubs. If we should end up removing the category from the generic stub template and then re-adding it (as has happened a few times in the past), we should use Category:Stubs (we actually missed a great opportunity to do this when last this happened). -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • One option: Start up Category:Stubs with a new template (maybe just Template:St) and run the two in parallel for the time being. Category:Stub is dropping in size, and it would be easy for WP:WSS to change Stub to St for those stubs not able to be subcategorised. Given time, hopefully Category stub will dwindle away. Once it has dwindled sufficiently, then it can be merged with the new category. At the moment, however, I suspect it would cause too much strain on the servers to do one giant changeover. If not, simply keep as is - certainly deletion is the worst possible option. Grutness|hello? 05:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no rename - Category for the generic stub template is a server resource problem. Stub sorters can still find items with Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub . -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Throwing in my vote before it is interpreted that there are not enough stub sorters (I'm one) supporting this to keep it from changing or being deleted. Categorization seems to be happening at a brisk pace (based on some random page surveys) and the size of the category will hopefully get more manageable as time goes on. If we knew the rate of stub creation, that would help us to very roughly project when this size might be reached. Also, if we can mount a "merge or bust" campaign that encourages stub mergers over deletion (a significant number of stubs end up in the deletion queues) the rate of decline could be accelerated further. Courtland 23:57, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Spoke with User:Jamesday, rename or delete doesn't look like a good idea. Rename.Delete. The category doesn't even work properly, because of all the items in it. May as well delete. --jag123 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? It looks like it's working to me. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It was turned off a while back because of performance problems or something. Look at Dorama, found using the google search for stubs. At this moment, it's a normal, generic stub, part of Category:Stub, but doesn't appear in the category. There are 18,000 hits in the stub Goolgle search, and only a fraction of that listed in the category. If the stub project ever reaches a point where stubs are controlled, then the category can be re-created, but at this point it's really useless. To clarify, even if a stub can't be categorised by an existing templates, and it's decided that the generic stub template is best, there's still no guarantee that it will show up in the category. --jag123 03:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • That's a template problem, not a category problem. Articles will show up in the category as they are edited. (And if we remove the category from the template, all the articles that are currently in the category will not move out until they are edited. There is a certain amount of inertia at work in large categories like this.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I see what you mean. I changed the category of the archeology stubs and nothing happened, as expected. In that case, Category:Stubs (if created) would contain stubs created after the template was changed (which would give Courtland an idea of how many stubs are created in a given time period) and stub sorters who find a generic stub that should remain a generic stub can make a null edit so the article "moves" categories. It wouldn't take very long for C:Stub to be emptied. Hopefully people won't forget that there are still a few thousand stubs out there that won't show up in either category, though. --jag123 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since the opportunity to express my opinion presents itself. I've always disliked the whole stub category heirarchy, it's a meta-category that shouldn't be mixed in with categories that are based on the actual subject matter. Things like Category:Articles to be merged are fine since they're so temporary, but few things seem more permanent than stub templates. Bryan 05:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A quick survey of the last 200 stubs that I have changed to more specialist stub templates shows that over 20% have now been extended beyond stub length. Since I average 100 template amendments a day, that's 40 stubs lost in the last two days. How permanent were you saying that template was? Grutness|hello? 05:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Taking the opposite of "few" to be "many," I'd say they're more permanent than many things. A compromise I've been following has been to move all but one stub notice over onto article's talk: pages when I run across articles with more than one stub notice, since I'm not one to unilaterally impose my will when there isn't a consensus, but I still vote to delete the whole lot of them when the question comes up (as it has here). Bryan 00:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • OW! Baaaad move! So when the page is expanded beyond stub length, the editor takes the stub notice off the page, but it stays on the talk page permanently. Can we have a list of all the articles you've done this to so that they can be reverted? NOW? Grutness|hello? 00:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I don't keep track. You can either dig around in my contributions for summaries with "stub" in them or you can look in the stub categories themselves under "talk:" (this will get the ones that others have been doing too). Let me know if you actually go do that, though, so I can follow along and delete the extra stub templates instead. See Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Moving templates to talk pages for more discussion of this issue. Bryan 02:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

December 19, 2004

  • The following discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion (category listed for deletion on December 19, 2004) with the consensus being to keep the category. RedWolf 17:45, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Should be merged with Category:Stubs, which has the proper (plural) name. For some reason, most of the articles are in the singular cat, even though almost all the subcats are properly plural. —Tkinias 20:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appears that all articles using Template:Stub appear in Category:Stub and all article using Template:Sect-stub appear in Category:Stubs. —Mike 02:10, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be an extremely bad idea to touch this category at all. Rather than renaming this category, just empty it by moving its contents into subcategories of Category:Stub categories. Likewise, Category:Stubs should be emptied before it is allowed to grow further. --ssd 04:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Stubs apparently was already empty, so I deleted it. --ssd 05:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a note to Template talk:Stub proposing the template be modified to encourage people not to use it anymore and to categorize stubs by topic. It may take a while for this category to be de-populated; once it is, Template:Stub should probably be listed on WP:TFD. -- Beland 01:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bad idea. Very very very bad idea to delete Template:Stub. The stub template is fully part of Wikipedia, and you don't know how many bots and/or people still use it. Even though Category:Stub is not being updated, if you delete it, it will cause major problems. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The fact that just four people have apparently made this decision for a very major change without even notifying the group most familiar with the subject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, is, in my opinion, not the way that things should be done. The fact that a change this big wasn't discussed in either Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is also "A VERY BAD THING" (official trademark of gK). gK ¿? 20:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If this is almost always added by adding Template:stub and if it will promptly be replaced by an equivalent Category:stubs and if someone will take responsibility for tracking down all non-conforming uses (e.g. other categories include it directly), then, I suppose it would be OK to replace it with Category:Stubs, but my feeling is why bother? To make it a plural? An awful lot of work for something so trivial. I say Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
I vote against changing this category in any way. --ssd 15:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep gK ¿? 02:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep: this is a vital part of the stub sorting WikiProject -- The Anome 10:11, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep If anything, sect-stubs should be changed to feed into this. Superm401 06:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not in Category

Why do stubs not feed into this category? Is it just because that would make that category too big? If so, how can we get an up to date list of all stubs? Superm401 01:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They used to. I haven't found the discussion that explains why they now are not. You can find a list of what links to the stub template at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, you cannot. Whatlinks here only shows 500 results. There are way more than 500 stubs. Bacchiad 01:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some good news at last

At least WP:WSS is making a bit of a dent. At present there are only some 3500 stubs in Category:Stub - still too many but way down on what it was. Everyone seems to be attacking the same parts of the alphabet, though - over 2000 of those stubs start with S or T! Grutness|hello? 06:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whisper it quietly, lest Wikipedia hears us, but there are now only 2441 articles in Category:Stub! Grutness|hello? 07:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now only 1546. Remuel 08:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The category now contains under 800 stubs! Grutness|hello? 04:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) (of course,t here are another 10,000 it doesn't contain...)

Whaaaaaa...what happened?

We were getting so close! Yesterday after I had sorted all but a couple all the way through H, there were less than 600 articles marked with just-plain "stub"...but now there are over 200 just in A through C alone! Either people got really busy writing really short articles or they've devised some new way of listing stubs. Which is it? Or something else entirely? --Jemiller226 06:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the list never contains all the stubs, it gets updated slowly, however i've never seen it jump by such a large amount. google searching for stubs indicates there are probably about 4-5000 stubs left in total, but dont worry it has been going down steadily. Bluemoose 07:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was a very impressive jump. Not sure how it happened - perhaps someone figured out how to do a null edit on every wikipedia article! As I noted in the last section of this page (and Bluemoose said above) the number of stubs in total has dropped considerably overall (WP:WSS has been watching the decline from 11,100 to about 9,200 over the last month). Substub has also been dropping dramatically (down to about 1000). We're getting there... Grutness|hello? 07:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oddly, that does seem to be what's happened... a lot of the new stubs haven't been edited for months. Perhaps they're all in the category now... Has someone managed to fix the template-lag problem? There are now about 3100 articles (16 pages) in the category. Grutness|hello? 07:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
all this leads me to belive that the list does contain every stub now, especially as google finds about 8000 stubs, then you consider that google finds stubs that are tagged due to its lag, so maybe its really about 6000, then consider it seems to double search results with its "supplemental results", this leaves you with about 3000... which is a very good thing. Bluemoose 12:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Might well be a good idea, since we're getting close to looking for the last ones anyway. Grutness|hello? 22:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just done a mass of stub -> sportbio-stub changes and many of them had their last modification date being late 2004, yet I had never seen any of them in the stub list. I was therefore surprised to see that the Stub category listing is not all it seems to be. Do any of the other stub categries suffer from this too? --TheParanoidOne 10:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No - and it would have been unlikely, since {{stub}} was the only stub template that was decoupled from its category. I suspect that we're now seeing the lot, folks. Don't know how it happened, but it happened. Grutness|hello? 11:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recently the D6 bot edited (edit and save, without change) the some 1000 pages with {{disambig}} that weren't categorized yet. This didn't appear in the pages edit history, but resulted in the articles being categorized (and removed from "uncategorized pages"). Possibly, someone did the same with the stub articles or a change in mediawiki resulted in the same. If you are interested, I can check if any remain uncategorized and do for {{stub}} as for {{disambig}}. -- User:Docu

That would be very useful (thanks in advance!). Some more good news... with the category now containing under 500 articles, we can use another hunting technique. We can currently hunt stubs using "What links here" from the template! FWIW, Category:substubs is getting equally thin (only 350 articles now). Grutness|hello? 12:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I ran it on the 490 pages on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub, the number of articles in the category is now beyond 750 (?). At least 25 were categorized while the bot was running. Only 2 of the 490 were in Category:Stubs on April 6. Once a new download version is available, I can check if we have all remaining ones. -- User:Docu
Of course, clearing them out of the generic categories is only half the battle. Clearing them doesn't make them not stubs anymore =(...Someone actually has to write the things at some point. =) --Jemiller226 20:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
True of course - but at least they're going to be where editors in specialist subjects can find them easily. I do recounts of various geo-stub categories every now and again, and am pleased to see that quite a number of stubs are disappearing from them - presumably improved beyond stub level. Grutness|hello? 23:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm .. .. I just did a count on the April 6 dump: there were 28944 articles linking to Template:Stub and only 2678 of those categorized in Category:Stub. Even if in the meantime you categorized half of them, there should still a lot left. I will try check the categorylinks table of April 21 to see if I can can run the bot on a reasonable selection thereof. -- User:Docu

You are working fast on this category: of those c. 26000 to add, there are just 9962 left. I didn't want to add them all at once. Besides, there are about 1600 currently (May 15) in the category. -- User:Docu

From the last dump (May 16), there were just 5700 left to add. The number of articles in the category was down to 100, before I started adding them. -- User:Docu

Man, it's kind of discouraging to see the list get so small and in a matter of hours, return to another massive list of stubs! Oh well, at least that's one method of ensuring a bit of job (role?) security on here. =) --Jemiller226 05:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
once they're all done, you can start on the 10,000 bio-stubs! :) Grutness...wha? 07:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Does this mean all the stubs that need sorting are in the list now? Bluemoose 09:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like it. I just did a count of articles in the category and found 23 pages, with 80 stubs on the last page (~4480 stubs total). A search for stubs on Google is reporting 4510 stubs found. Those numbers look pretty close. --Allen3 talk 11:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
And that will probably include 30 or so pages like Wikipedia:Stub explaining what the template messagge looks like. yessss!!! Grutness...wha? 13:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be complete by now. Some of the 5700 might already have been taken care of. Below, there is a breakdown by letter.

Of the last 100, 15 were in Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces, 16 in User namespace. --- User:Docu

Letter A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T W Y
Count 282 362 509 297 219 236 236 242 171 163 205 313 444 282 177 404 253 287 433 182 1
  • Unfortunately, these 5700 aren't the end of it. Pearle has continued to find and update even more stubs, which continue to add to the totals shown above. Fortunately, these seem to be coming in tens and twenties, no longer in hundreds or thousands per day, so the end probably really is near. It's just not clear exactly how near. Given this, and the fact that updating the counts was a distraction, I've reverted the Category ToC back to the standard version. Russ Blau (talk) 13:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not grounds to remove the ToC: this was never going to be the end of it because people are still adding the template to new articles (probably at a faster rate than the bot is), but the ToC still gives us an idea of what's to be done. Joe D (t) 15:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
"the ToC still gives us an idea of what's to be done." Assuming of course, it's kept up to date. --TheParanoidOne 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Not really, as the live list is available on the page further down. BTW The 5700 are not the precise count on May 16, but the number of pages the bot tried to add on the 18 when there were just 100 left. It's a reasonable estimate though. Today (May 28), there are just about 950 left .. -- User:Docu

Katz's Deli...

...is not disappearing from the list, even though there's no stub tag there. Any idea why? --Jemiller226 20:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It's probably got a bad page history (accidentally created twice or similar). Admins can normally fix that sort of thing, but this one has block-compression problems, so it can't be fixed at the moment, and will have to hang around for a while. Sooner or later it'll be worth having another look at to fix it. Grutness|hello? 01:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Brion Vibber fixed it (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Spurious_article_in_a_category_and_search). -- User:Docu

User pages with stub tags

Does anyone else agree that it is ok to edit user pages to remove the stub tag? as it interferes with our lovely stub list. I'm sure no one would mind, especially if we left an edit note explaining why. Bluemoose 10:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What I would suggest doing is creating a new stub that looks exactly like the regular stub template but without including a category (called userpage-stub or something). Then politely suggest to each user on their Talk page that they change from the old stub template to the new one. Although this is a Wiki and you can edit almost any page, it is generally considered impolite to edit User pages except for typos unless they are someone like User:Jimbo Wales who says right on his user page to go ahead and edit it. BlankVerse ∅ 10:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, asking them on their talk pages is a good idea. There are other "stub" pages such as Wikipedia:Yahoo! searching Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Google searching Wikipedia, I personally think these could just be speedy deleted, as they have no useful content, and i doubt anyone knows they even exist. Bluemoose 14:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Check the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not sure they fit. You might have to submit them at WP:VFD. If only those pages could be a form, like the ones that show up when the developers disable the Wikipedia search engine. (Of course you could just put a Delete because tag on the article and see if an admin will delete it anyway, but I'm not really recommending you do that. ;-) BlankVerse ∅ 09:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Asking them is a very good idea. Some of these stubs are there for valid reasons, such as creating dummy pages to use as templates (the other meaning) for real articles. Then again, if we can find the right subcategory for these dummy articles, it would make sense to change them over anyway! Grutness|hello? 10:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

rename this category

This category should be renamed to "Uncategorized stubs". --SuperDude 02:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It probably should, but it's still so heavily used that any change to the template is likely to cause serious server problems, and in any case due to the way templates work you'd need to do a null edit on every stub in the category to get it to move to the new category. That's one of the reasons why planned moves to Category:Stubs have never been accepted. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Reduction of uncategorized stubs

I have been reducing the list of uncategorized stubs by changing the stub templates on the articles. Will other Wikipedians help me on this mission? --SuperDude 03:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry - you're not the only one working on this! :) Grutness...wha? 05:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. You might want to look up Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. --TheParanoidOne 08:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Stub Sorting

How much progress has stub-sorting been making. I've only just started so don't really know.

Stub Sorting

How much progress has stub-sorting been making. I've only just started so don't really know. --bjwebb 15:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A lot of progress has been made. When the project began there was an estimated 25,000 unsorted stubs plus another 4000 substubs. These estimates may have been low, and new stubs come in daily. Currently all substubs have been sorted and the template deleted, while less than 1400 unsorted stubs remain. Next month will probably see the start of maintence mode for unsorted stubs and the start of the main assault on the biographical stubs. --Allen3 talk 15:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Just out of intrest when did the project actually begin? --bjwebb 19:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
15 Nov, 2004. Joe D (t) 20:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
In all there are well over 25,000 stubs, since many were already crudely divided (probably closer to 40,000 if the truth be known). The above tally doesn't include items moved from coarsely graded subcategories to more finely graded ones. I know I'm biased on this one, but moving several thousand geo-stubs to separate country and region categories is another example of stub sorting progress - in all there are over 10,000 geo-stubs divided into about 60 different subcategories whereas before they were listed as UK-geo-stub, US-geo-stub or general geo-stub. The same is true with many other stub subcategories (music, history, science and soon - biography). Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Important: This category is getting very small.
If appropriate, please give yourself a hearty round of applause for moving content into subtopical categories.
Heh :) --TheParanoidOne 10:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

To quote Sir Edmund Hillary, on his return to camp after the conquest of Everest: "Well George, we knocked the bastard off!" Grutness...wha? 01:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I go away for the weekend, and when i get back i find a virtually empty stub list!, well done!. Bluemoose 13:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brackets

I have put both Water Music (Handel) and The Three Musketeers (1993) into an apropiate stub category, but they still appear in Category:Stub. Why? Is it something to do with the brackets? --bjwebb 08:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

More likely a page hstory problem. I'll see if I can fix them. Grutness...wha? 10:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Nope, that didn't work - no idea what the problem is. I suggest asking at the Village Pump. Grutness...wha? 10:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Probably the "Katz's Deli" discussed further up on this page. -- User:Docu
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/u/Category_talk%7EStubs_Archive_1_3f9d.html"