Wikipedia talk:Offline reports/Should this be a stub?

Topbanana,

It appears that your script (last run 11-JUN-2004) is not filtering out all of the disambig pages. As I scan through, I see quite a few articles that I know are disambig pages, and have the {{disambig}} code in them, but they ended up here nonetheless.

For example, Andrew Marshall has been labeled as {{disambig}} since early June, and all the 19XX Olympics articles have been {{disambig}} even longer.

What's up? Kevyn 10:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like recent changes to The Wikimedia software have broken parts of my scripts - oh well, they're a work in progress anyway. Corrected version should be up in a day or two. Ta for poiting it out, feedback always very welcome. - TB 11:49, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

On ex-Nazi's. Yes, I was lazy. It is a stub and I hope it grows with more names on it. I will add stub msg.WHEELER 23:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deletion candidates and dictionary definitions

Most of these seem to be candidates for deletion, either from lack of content or because they are dictionary definitions. m.e. 09:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My only problem with this is most of wikipedia at one time or another would be/have been a candidate for deletion if lack of content was the main criteria.

I added a stub message yesterday to a one-sentence item that had been on wikipedia for over a year, within 3 hours it had grown substantially. I would guess as a direct result of it appearing on "recent changes". Markalex 10:42, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ok, as they are now they don't have much content; I suppose that's the definition of a stub... m.e. 11:32, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yep. I've got no problem with dictionary definitions.

Short non-stubs (Potina)

Having marked a few pages as stubs, I am wondering if some of them will ever get beyond that. What is there to say about Potina, Roman goddess of children's drinks? Should there be some way of saying, This is not a stub, this is it? m.e. 10:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Some of them might not. but they'll still appear on the shortpages report anyway even when they stop appearing here. But as i've discovered there are some people on here with some rather esoteric knowledge. In some ways it would be nice it there was a hidden marker that in effect said don't bother reporting this as a stub - it's unlikely to grow. Markalex 10:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd say if that's all it's possible for an article to contain then it should probably be merged with related subjects. However for Potina, I can imagine the article acquiring information on her relationship with other gods, sources or myths that mention her, statues or representations hat still exist today and such. - TB 10:36, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yup - investigating a bit, it looks like a single 2-4000 word article covering "Roman Gods and Godesses of Children and Childbirth" would be appropriate - see [1] [2] [3] - TB 10:54, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • There still isn't any way of linking into the middle of an article, is there? Some of these short articles might have some use as link targets. If we had one article on Minor Roman deities, with each deity in a paragraph of their own, and some way of

linking to them

redirecting to them

Then we would not need separate articles. m.e. 11:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"There still isn't any way of linking into the middle of an article, is there?"

As far as i'm aware. No. A pity as it would be the best way. Then they could be separated out if someone did "grow" any of them. Markalex 11:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, if an article is broken up into sections If an article entitles "Roman gods and godesses of children and childbirth" had a section ==Potina==, Links can be made to [[Roman gods and godesses of children and childbirth#Potina]]. The whole article opens, but scrolled down to the relevant section. - TB 12:46, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Last thing i read, unfortunately I can't remember where, said that it wasn't working, it's good that it is again. Next thing is to figure out what else would be broken doing it this way. I know someone has been adding categories lately to a lot of them [[Category: Gods]] and Category:Goddesses]] and it's sub-pages for a start.Markalex 14:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hurm - just tried this can couldn't get it to work - the redirect got to the right page but not the right section on the page. No idea when that broke, I'll need to raise a WikiMedia bugrep. Ho hum :) - TB 16:46, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

TB. As someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia than me. Would a redirect to a section work? Markalex 14:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A minor script problem?

8-VSB is a redirect to 8VSB but shows up on the report. Checking the edit date it's before the database dump. Markalex 17:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)