User talk:Triddle/stubsensor/20050421

Hi, could you break this into groups of ten or twenty using sections? - this would make it much easier to remove entries once they have been checked. Onco p53 05:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your job changes

You are welcome to modify the Your job section but please read this entire section first and list why you are doing the change and how you think it will help. If everyone reads this section and everyone writes their thoughts on their changes we should develop a pretty good picture of what might work.

There is kinda a mess here; the next time I try this I think I'll seek some sort of official comments on what the stub criteria should be. I hope y'all have some good suggestions or changes. Triddle 18:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a stub or not?

I don't know whether Loliginidae should be classed as a stub or not. I've left it as it is for now, but would welcome a second opinion. Thryduulf 17:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that a stub. My judgment is based on the fact that there is no text that explains what the species in that family have in common or unique traits about most of them. In fact you can't even tell its a family (as opposed to another type of the scientific naming system) unless you look at the table on the right and use a little deductive reasoning. The fact that it has a large list of the species in the articles does not remove its stub-fullness, at least to me. Triddle 18:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]