On 1/12/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/12/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Single lines are not stubs
Um, they aren't? I guess _de jure_ they aren't, but _de facto_ any
that isn't is a permanent dicdef and needs transwiki-ing. Could you
explain?
A while back when there was only one stub catigory and it became
completely overloaded someone came up with the idea of substubs.
People tended to object to the template on the basis that substubs
shouldn't be in wikipedia at but that was mostly a side issue. the
core was correct. Single lines do not qualify as stubs. Of course when
we switched over to stubs by subject the substub catigory was lost.
Still all the details can still be found in the page history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Substub&oldid=32649…
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make this a
default.
--
Sam
The fight over the number of characters would be fun to watch. From a
safe distance.
--
geni