Geoff Burling wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
(And for the record, when I find an article with more than one stub tag attached, I always reduce the number to one. Don't like it? Then turn the stub into an article, & we'll both be happy.)
PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. Different stubs are subcategories of different parent categories. Someone from a wikiproject about content will often go into that project's stub category and start work on stuff they find there.
Are you serious? To repeat myself, how many stub notices does Wikipedia need on any given article? This is the silliest idea I've seen proposed here -- including many I have proposed -- for these & probably many more reasons:
-- just how many people actually look for stubs in their area of interest? I've seen anecdotal evidence that few people bother to chase down stubs. (When I am on the hunt for a topic to work on, I'm as just as likely to look under the more broad categories as under the stubs.)
I don't know about others, but I look through [[Category:Scientology stubs]] when I'm bored.
-- this confuses meta-information (which should be on the Talk page) with warnings to the reader (which should be on the article page) I believe this falls under the category of "instruction creep". If an there is a reason an article needs more than one stub notice, then shouldn't they go on the talk page?
That's a good idea, actually. Would you be averse to moving second and third stubs to talk pages instead of just deleting them?
And last, & perhaps most important: -- just exactly when was this policy dreamed up, debated, & voted on?
People started doing it presumably because they found it useful.
Until reducing multiple stubs becomes a bannible offence, I will continue to do it, based on my editorial discression. you have been warned.
Well, I can't stop you :-) But if you could please move them to talk so they're still findable by interested editors (presumably with a note of why), that'd be good.
I didn't say 90%, I said 20-30%!
You're right. I went back & checked my log of Wiki-EN mail, & I misremembered the figure. (I'm amazed, though, at how many people threw around "90%" when talking about issues.) I sincerely apologize.
Although it's still a horrible percentage. I wonder what the numbers are like now.
- d.