User talk:KathrynLybarger/Archives/2009/01

When is a stub not a stub?
Hello. I have seen that you edited the page Payne Fund Studies and have removed the stub marker. I think it is a stub. For one thing, there are 13 studies. I am going to find out what they are and list them. It seems to me that, until that information and perhaps other information is added, this is a stub. What criteria are you using to decide this is not a stub. Perhaps I am unclear on this and can be informed. Thanx. RayKiddy (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! I agree, this article is a stub.  Note that I did not just remove the stub marker; I replaced it with more specific stub markers film-stub and psych-stub, and put those at the bottom of the article.  As a result, it may come to the attention of folks who look in Category:Film stubs and Category:Psychology stubs so that they may aid in expanding it, and/or more properly categorizing it.  I hope this helps! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad manager
Please take a look at Category:Software. It is somewhat organized, the couple of detail articles in the category (besides yours!) actually belong there, The hundreds of other detail articles are all in subcategories. Could you either use an appropriate subcategory or revert your edit, please. Thanks tooold (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetization and collation
I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)