Talk:Stub

For older history of this page see Talk:Stub/old

Please don't delete this disambiguation page. I created it to help people who may follow a "stub" link in some other context (currently stub redirects to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub, on which page I have provided a link to this disambig page).

I've tried to "fix" the current links to "stub" that have nothing to do with short Wikipedia articles. Others can continue to do this at Special:Whatlinkshere/Stub.

- dcljr 03:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-I'm going to add to the disambig page a link to Wikipedia:stub, so anything that accidentally links here can see that. Any objections? If so, go ahead and remove it. :) Flcelloguy 23:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC) -Actually, all I did was move the Wikipedia stub notice to be on top of the disambig notice; this increases visibility (I missed the wiki:stub notice at first). I'll try and find other pages that link to "stub" when meaning to link to "Wikipedia:stub". Flcelloguy 23:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be something in here about stubbing one's toe? Is there an article on that? There probably should be.

Why do you say that every bad text is a stub?,Those people wrote it and thougt they could help you,SO PLEASE BE MORE THANKFUL NEXT TIME!,I dind't wrote a stub myself,but I'm feeling sorry for the people who wrote a good piece of work,and you spoiled it by calling it a 'stub'!And maybe you want to bring it to 'a higher standard of quality',but edit it YOURSELF!,and don't humiliate them PUBLICALLY,because they only thought they HELP you!,And I'm ANGRY!

Probably/maybe those who wrote stubs thought that that was quite enough, and maybe more should go into wikibooks??? I haven't yet seen a boundary determination between the 'pedia and the 'books. Is there a boundary? QUITTNER 142.150.49.171 7 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Questions for GTBacchus[edit]

Please answer these questions in a concrete form,GTBacchus.

Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,do you know the meaning of the Encyclopedia?

--Rocky7 10:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,do you know that the Encyclopedia "Wikipedia" has the most serious necessity to explain the meaning of the "stub" in the "Wikipedia"?--Rocky7 10:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,what encyclopedia do you think need to interprit the meaning of the "stub" in the "Wikipedia" except this "Wikipedia"?--Rocky7 10:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Rocky7 10:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,do you know you are only thinking about the namespace inadequately?--Rocky7 10:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,do you think you shold resign the administrator right now?--Rocky7 10:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,are you an evil cracker?--Rocky7 10:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,do you know "Wikipedia namespace" is not for the namespace for the Encyclopedia?--Rocky7 11:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,do you know the meaning of the namespace correctly?--Rocky7 11:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.or Miss GTBacchus,why do you think the page of stub of this Wikipedia is 'a non-Wikipedia page'? --Rocky7 16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... wow. The only problem I have with showing those templates on that page is this: When the {{stub}} template appears on a page, then that page is automatically sorted into Category:Stubs, which is deprecated. I and others have been keeping that category clean, which is to say, empty, by sorting everything that gets labelled {{stub}} into more specific stub types, like {{art-stub}}, {{bio-stub}}, etc. When you put the template {{stub}} on this page as an explanation, you are cluttering up a deprecated category. Please stop.

Not only that, but your instructions about how to use the {{stub}} template at Wikipedia are incorrect. As I said, Category:Stubs is deprecated, so posting instructions to sort articles into it are kind of... well, wrong. That template is actually to be avoided.

Finally, please read WP:ASR. When we write about Wikipedia, on Wikipedia, we have to be careful that we're not creating content that will be addled if Wikipedia is forked, or if a print version is produced. Mixing up the use of templates as templates and the use of templates as article content is asking for trouble in that regard.

My answers to your questions: yes, not so much, I don't care, mu, no because I'm not an admin, no, yes, yes, and see WP:ASR for how the article stub could easily become (and probably already has become) a non-wikipedia page. At that point, as explained above, things like templates are prone to being programmatically removed, thus rendering the section in question nonsense, which is why I'm going to revert it now. Thank you. GTBacchus 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are explaining why you have to delete only the the part of template.You don't talk anything about the deletion of other many sentences. There must be better way. But I say,"Thank you very much for your answer,Mr.or Miss GTBacchus. I appreciate you so much. Good Jobs." --Rocky7 09:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please include the meaning here as it is used by Wikipedians? Thanks! Ludvikus 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]