| Revision as of 00:21, 16 April 2006 editKylu (talk | contribs)9,405 edits note on -inprogress (thxmch!)← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:54, 18 April 2006 edit undoKylu (talk | contribs)9,405 edits Still a stub?Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :thxsomuch to ] in helping me on this. n.n I've contacted the media people at Revol briefly, will try to get some more precise information on number of users, technology, history, etc... from them. I would ] that while not necessarily "correct" the information would at least be considered a verifiable source (as per verifiability policy). Page to be updated as I get more information. | :thxsomuch to ] in helping me on this. n.n I've contacted the media people at Revol briefly, will try to get some more precise information on number of users, technology, history, etc... from them. I would ] that while not necessarily "correct" the information would at least be considered a verifiable source (as per verifiability policy). Page to be updated as I get more information. | ||
| :] 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | :] 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Still a stub? == | |||
| ''"Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Internet search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub."'' - ] | |||
| So, since it can't be improved in content after a "superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library" does that mean it's not a stub anymore, or does it still qualify? I'd like to remove stub cellular companies and convert them into "real" articles. | |||
| <font color="#FF00FF">]<small> ]</small></font> 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:54, 18 April 2006
Ugh... I promise guys, I'm really trying to make this page look good. It's difficult finding objective information on cellular companies sometimes. :( lilewyn 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- thxsomuch to Admrboltz in helping me on this. n.n I've contacted the media people at Revol briefly, will try to get some more precise information on number of users, technology, history, etc... from them. I would assume that while not necessarily "correct" the information would at least be considered a verifiable source (as per verifiability policy). Page to be updated as I get more information.
- lilewyn 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Still a stub?
"Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Internet search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub." - WP:Stub
So, since it can't be improved in content after a "superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library" does that mean it's not a stub anymore, or does it still qualify? I'd like to remove stub cellular companies and convert them into "real" articles.