Quality check (talk | contribs) ←Replaced content with 'Hi, Welcome to my Talk page!!!' |
→Tag crazy: whoa |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi, Welcome to my Talk page!!! |
Hi, Welcome to my Talk page!!! |
||
== May I make a suggestion? == |
|||
You might want to try cleaning up some of the articles you tag yourself. At the end of the day you tagging them is not improving the article per se, it is simply bringing it to the attention of others who have to improve it. If you tried wikifying it/referencing it/expanding it yourself it would cut out the middle man (and also be a lot more satisfying to the user than drive-by tagging, trust me on this'n). The backlogs in those sort of areas are ''massive''; try not to increase them where you can possibly avoid it. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Tag crazy == |
|||
Actually too short is about the lead of longer articles, not about one sentence articles. By putting it in that you will categorize it and make the category huge. |
|||
Notice the article says on it that it is a "stub," that's what is used to identify one sentence articles. |
|||
As to only one source, did you want me to put a source for every word? |
|||
Again, by its nature as a stub, it will probably have only one sentence and one source. Find longer articles with short leads and work on the leads yourself rather than tagging articles that are already supplied with information that they are short and need work, ie, they're stubs. |
|||
--[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Adding bio stub to an article, however, is VERY useful. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Whoa, don't tag articles someone is writing right now ([[The Pubes]]). Give him a day, then tag it if you need to. Adding a category to that one was easy, though. --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 10:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:20, 1 January 2009
Hi, Welcome to my Talk page!!!
May I make a suggestion?
You might want to try cleaning up some of the articles you tag yourself. At the end of the day you tagging them is not improving the article per se, it is simply bringing it to the attention of others who have to improve it. If you tried wikifying it/referencing it/expanding it yourself it would cut out the middle man (and also be a lot more satisfying to the user than drive-by tagging, trust me on this'n). The backlogs in those sort of areas are massive; try not to increase them where you can possibly avoid it. Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Tag crazy
Actually too short is about the lead of longer articles, not about one sentence articles. By putting it in that you will categorize it and make the category huge.
Notice the article says on it that it is a "stub," that's what is used to identify one sentence articles.
As to only one source, did you want me to put a source for every word?
Again, by its nature as a stub, it will probably have only one sentence and one source. Find longer articles with short leads and work on the leads yourself rather than tagging articles that are already supplied with information that they are short and need work, ie, they're stubs.
--KP Botany (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding bio stub to an article, however, is VERY useful. --KP Botany (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, don't tag articles someone is writing right now (The Pubes). Give him a day, then tag it if you need to. Adding a category to that one was easy, though. --KP Botany (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)