Wikiquote talk:Stub/Archive

Moved Aphaia's comments here from the article ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Re:"Identifying stubs"

or "while a page that lackes the latter for a long time..." and refer to "nointro" Aph.

Re:"Categorizing stubs"

Perhaps a list of existing stub templates and categories is better to be refered here. Aph.

I've made modifications inspired by these. Thanks for the feedback! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote

I've moved the page to "wikiquote" namespace, but did not remove the BIG draft notice, since I do not feel it has gotten enough of feedback from the community. Regardless, I think it is more useful to wikilink the "stub" in wikiquote stub notices to this page rather than to the wp page.

Should the stub notices link here rather than to wp?

• Vote closed: Result: Yes (unanimous). I'm going to link it soon. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Yes ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Once we have a Wikiquote-specific article, we should link relevant pages to it, not Wikipedia (although a WP and/or a Meta link for more info is often useful, too). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general sentiment of linking to wp/meta, but I don't think it would serve us well in this case -- the definition of stubs, and how to unstub articles, is quite different beyond the 2-word "short articles" :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely. (Why is this even a matter for debate?) 121a0012 01:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Not debate (so far the votes are unanimous), but I want to make sure the community agrees before I go and (effectively) change 700 articles to point to this article :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. I agree with JeffQ and everyone else. iddo999 14:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)