Geoff Burling wrote:
I'm sometimes amazed at how much work various people are willing to expend on categorizing & recategorizing stubs. I can't help think that the effort expended on moving an article labelled {{bio-stub}} to (say) {{German-bio-stub}}, then {{German-scientist-bio-stub}}, then suplimented with tags like {{biologist-stub}} & {{European-woman-stub}}. Having a project like this for these kinds of people to expend their need for organization would be A Good Thing.
We have one.
(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.
That is: the sort of stub is actually as important as that it's a stub.
When I used to do New Article Patrol on a regular basis, I found myself wikifying new articles, rather than tagging them for deletion. (Despite the kill-happy reputation of AfD, I found it far easier to subject these articles to a scrubbing than listing them.) Then I saw David Gerard's comment about 90% of new articles were dreck, & started to suspect my own judgement. So I lost interest in that chore.*
I didn't say 90%, I said 20-30%!
- d.