Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Stubs"
Fred Morlan (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
If you think an article marked "stub" contains all the information it should, feel free to remove the category marker. I don't see a need to stipulate a specific cutoff of one sentence. [[User:Jonah Greenthal|Jonah]] 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | If you think an article marked "stub" contains all the information it should, feel free to remove the category marker. I don't see a need to stipulate a specific cutoff of one sentence. [[User:Jonah Greenthal|Jonah]] 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'd find something like "contains sufficient information to cover the basics of the subject the page is about" to be a better guideline than anything to do with length. --[[User:Fred Morlan|Fred Morlan]] 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Comedy response: MATT JACKSON: PROPONENT OF REVERSE CAP LENGTHS ON THE WIKI. --[[User:Fred Morlan|Fred Morlan]] 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:46, 11 July 2011
Can we change the category of "stubs" so it only applies to pages that are literally just one sentence? There are a lot of articles in here that are pretty comprehensive about their subject matter, even though they may only be a few sentences long and thereby stubs by another Wiki's standards. --Matt Jackson
If you think an article marked "stub" contains all the information it should, feel free to remove the category marker. I don't see a need to stipulate a specific cutoff of one sentence. Jonah 23:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd find something like "contains sufficient information to cover the basics of the subject the page is about" to be a better guideline than anything to do with length. --Fred Morlan 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Comedy response: MATT JACKSON: PROPONENT OF REVERSE CAP LENGTHS ON THE WIKI. --Fred Morlan 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)