This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
At the moment, the first paragraph of Creating stub types reads:
In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category, although "upmerged" templates are also occasionally created which feed into more general stub categories.
I think we should change this to remove the part after the comma; I don't think it's obvious to an inexperienced Wikipedian what that means, and so I think it makes the opening more complicated than it needs to be.
"Upmerging" is explained in New stub templates, a couple of paragraphs down, so a reader will still get the information. I just don't think it's important enough to need to be in the first sentence.
When I edited that part of the page, I was trying to make it more clear and understandable to someone who might not have a great understanding of templates, categories, and other concepts specific to (or needing knowledge of) Wikipedia. I think the plainer we can get the message across, the better :)
Thanks very much, and well done on all your work! Drum guy ( talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories concerning what kinds of categories should be hidden (using the new HIDDENCAT magic word). For the moment it is proposed that hiding be applied to all categories which classify the article rather than the article subject (i.e. maintenance cats, stub cats, "Spoken articles" etc.) Please weigh in. -- Kotniski ( talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
At what point is a stub no longer a stub? Is there a simple mathematic solution? Like once it hits 7,500 bytes? I am sure this has been discussed. Kingturtle ( talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have more info? -- Camaeron ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a small comment about the statement that "directly copying other sources is plagiarism". I think it should say something more like "directly copying from other sources without proper attribution is plagiarism". However, I thought it might be better to get some comments here first before making that change. (unlike, a small tweak that I made today in the same section, -- the section "Ideal stub article" -- where I was more confident it was right. It was just a change to a hyper link.) Any comments? Would this be a good change? Thanks, Mike Schwartz ( talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) tweaked slightly 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we pick a maximum image size, and stick with it? I've been using 40x30px on the many, many stub templates I've had cause to edit for this or some other initial reason, but there's no "official" guidance on this, beyond the word "small". I'd rather we standardised on some other size than we fail to standardise at all, however. I think that using an ad hoc variety of sizes looks unnecessarily scrappy on pages where there's multi-stubbing, and we absolutely do not want to get into the size equivalent of "loudness wars". Alai ( talk) 01:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following to the bottom of "Basic information", right above "1.1 Ideal stub article"
Like all articles, stubs must conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly those governing content and style.
Comments? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting frequently annoyed witnessing AWB users making pointless edits by moving stub templates below categories. See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#AWB_reverting_order_of_stubs_and_cats. Anyway, articles are rendered in such a way that the message "This article is a stub" appear above the categories. Please change this "policy" to the reflect this fact. -- Matthead Discuß 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Change the link "expanding it" from [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it] to a short, animated tutorial like on the French wikipedia, see the template at the top of fr:Fuck for Forest or fr:Banque cantonale du Valais. "ébauche" means "draft" which is equivalent to "stub"? "Comment" in French, means "How", so instead of a link to "expanding it" (edit this page) make a link to "how" with a short tutorial, like the one at fr:Aide:Comment modifier une page ( english translation). Notice the emphasis on including an edit summary. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the first part of course was just from the category that the stub was in. You can summarize the words "You can share your knowledge" by saying "you can help". "How" is more useful than "edit". The advantage of the french link is that is that it goes to a one page tutorial. If we could summarize wp:tutorial in one page that would be the best link. Barring that, a link to wp:Tutorial would be a big improvement to a link to "edit this page". It would be good to update the intro at the tutorial to let people know why they were sent there. See I couldn't care less about "becoming a Wikipedian" ("Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia to which you can contribute. This tutorial will help you become a Wikipedian."), but I do want to know how I can expand a stub article, and just taking me directly to the edit link is not very helpful. 199.125.109.122 ( talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the box standard for stub templates is apparently to wrap them inside a <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">, XHTML errors are generated by pages containing multiple stub templates, as all id attributes on a page should be unique. This concern was raised at the village pump and I offered two possible solutions, so I invite everyone interested in stub template formats to comment here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at Vice_Fund and determined it lacked content and should probably marked as a stub. I did not really see guidelines on this page for when we should mark existing pages as stubs. Please consider adding guidelines for this situation.
Why are these still around if they're deprecated? I removed the last few instances of {{ stub}} just now and boldly nominated both the template and category for deletion. Since they're deprecated, I see no use in keeping them around. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There really isn't any rule requiring all articles, no matter how long, to be officially labeled "stubs". That seems obvious, but maybe actions speak louder than words.
I just looked at Category:Mathematics stubs. It says:
But the usual way to help in these cases is to remove the template that says that the long long long article is a stub.
This is a very widespread thing. It needs to get addressed in a systematic way. Is someone doing that? Are there bots or WikiProjects or something intended to put a stop to the competition for the title of World's Longest "Stub"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Bots can help. Obviously a bot cannot decide whether an article qualifies as a "stub". But bots could identify long articles labeled "stubs" and call those to the attention of humans who could then consider whether to delete the "sub" notices. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the "New stub templates section", most importantly removing the section on {{ metastub}} and adding in a guideline on the size of stub icons. I removed the metastub section for two reasons: firstly, it's not how stub templates are usually created, and secondly, a lot of editors clearly have problems understanding it - I regularly check the nonexistent Category:B stubs and frequently find considerable numbers of stubs "relating to A" categorised in there. Grutness... wha? 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Stub syntax (e.g., what code do you actually insert into a document to designate it as a stub?) should be highlighted as an obvious entry in (near the top of) this article. (I can't even find it AT ALL in this article, except for the example of how to invoke a particular template, e.g., the example for {{Writers-stub}}.
Can't you just put "{{ stub}}" (no quotes) in an article to designate an article as a stub? If so (or whatever the syntax is), this info should be prominently included in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of this entry. Anyone agree? philiptdotcom ( talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Zaranoff is a alchoholic drink. People prefer it with a little squess of Faxe kondi. Tests has showed that peole prefer it with a Faxe Knondi. (panel of 8 people). in general it i very comfortable to be intoxicated by exactly that drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.107.38 ( talk) 23:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How hard and fast is the stub placement protocol. I find that many sports articles that contain navboxes look better with a stub immediately below the external links but filling any gap between links and the navbox. Just wondering if there is any flexibility on this or whether it is a hard and fast rule. Beyond the aesthetic reasons I believe it would increase the improve of stub-rated articles as more people would read the stub and expand the article. Londo 06 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I visited this page to raise the same question as Londo06, and maybe propose to place the stub-template above the "footer nav-boxes"! For it to make any impact on the reader to actually see it and maybe expand the article, this is for the better IMO... Look at this article about Ron Lewin; here I didn't see the template, so I moved it to the "white space" between the References and the "footer nav-boxes". Anyone see what I mean? lil2mas ( talk) 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
At the moment, the first paragraph of Creating stub types reads:
In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category, although "upmerged" templates are also occasionally created which feed into more general stub categories.
I think we should change this to remove the part after the comma; I don't think it's obvious to an inexperienced Wikipedian what that means, and so I think it makes the opening more complicated than it needs to be.
"Upmerging" is explained in New stub templates, a couple of paragraphs down, so a reader will still get the information. I just don't think it's important enough to need to be in the first sentence.
When I edited that part of the page, I was trying to make it more clear and understandable to someone who might not have a great understanding of templates, categories, and other concepts specific to (or needing knowledge of) Wikipedia. I think the plainer we can get the message across, the better :)
Thanks very much, and well done on all your work! Drum guy ( talk) 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories concerning what kinds of categories should be hidden (using the new HIDDENCAT magic word). For the moment it is proposed that hiding be applied to all categories which classify the article rather than the article subject (i.e. maintenance cats, stub cats, "Spoken articles" etc.) Please weigh in. -- Kotniski ( talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
At what point is a stub no longer a stub? Is there a simple mathematic solution? Like once it hits 7,500 bytes? I am sure this has been discussed. Kingturtle ( talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have more info? -- Camaeron ( talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a small comment about the statement that "directly copying other sources is plagiarism". I think it should say something more like "directly copying from other sources without proper attribution is plagiarism". However, I thought it might be better to get some comments here first before making that change. (unlike, a small tweak that I made today in the same section, -- the section "Ideal stub article" -- where I was more confident it was right. It was just a change to a hyper link.) Any comments? Would this be a good change? Thanks, Mike Schwartz ( talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) tweaked slightly 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we pick a maximum image size, and stick with it? I've been using 40x30px on the many, many stub templates I've had cause to edit for this or some other initial reason, but there's no "official" guidance on this, beyond the word "small". I'd rather we standardised on some other size than we fail to standardise at all, however. I think that using an ad hoc variety of sizes looks unnecessarily scrappy on pages where there's multi-stubbing, and we absolutely do not want to get into the size equivalent of "loudness wars". Alai ( talk) 01:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following to the bottom of "Basic information", right above "1.1 Ideal stub article"
Like all articles, stubs must conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly those governing content and style.
Comments? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting frequently annoyed witnessing AWB users making pointless edits by moving stub templates below categories. See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#AWB_reverting_order_of_stubs_and_cats. Anyway, articles are rendered in such a way that the message "This article is a stub" appear above the categories. Please change this "policy" to the reflect this fact. -- Matthead Discuß 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Change the link "expanding it" from [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it] to a short, animated tutorial like on the French wikipedia, see the template at the top of fr:Fuck for Forest or fr:Banque cantonale du Valais. "ébauche" means "draft" which is equivalent to "stub"? "Comment" in French, means "How", so instead of a link to "expanding it" (edit this page) make a link to "how" with a short tutorial, like the one at fr:Aide:Comment modifier une page ( english translation). Notice the emphasis on including an edit summary. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the first part of course was just from the category that the stub was in. You can summarize the words "You can share your knowledge" by saying "you can help". "How" is more useful than "edit". The advantage of the french link is that is that it goes to a one page tutorial. If we could summarize wp:tutorial in one page that would be the best link. Barring that, a link to wp:Tutorial would be a big improvement to a link to "edit this page". It would be good to update the intro at the tutorial to let people know why they were sent there. See I couldn't care less about "becoming a Wikipedian" ("Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia to which you can contribute. This tutorial will help you become a Wikipedian."), but I do want to know how I can expand a stub article, and just taking me directly to the edit link is not very helpful. 199.125.109.122 ( talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the box standard for stub templates is apparently to wrap them inside a <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">, XHTML errors are generated by pages containing multiple stub templates, as all id attributes on a page should be unique. This concern was raised at the village pump and I offered two possible solutions, so I invite everyone interested in stub template formats to comment here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at Vice_Fund and determined it lacked content and should probably marked as a stub. I did not really see guidelines on this page for when we should mark existing pages as stubs. Please consider adding guidelines for this situation.
Why are these still around if they're deprecated? I removed the last few instances of {{ stub}} just now and boldly nominated both the template and category for deletion. Since they're deprecated, I see no use in keeping them around. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There really isn't any rule requiring all articles, no matter how long, to be officially labeled "stubs". That seems obvious, but maybe actions speak louder than words.
I just looked at Category:Mathematics stubs. It says:
But the usual way to help in these cases is to remove the template that says that the long long long article is a stub.
This is a very widespread thing. It needs to get addressed in a systematic way. Is someone doing that? Are there bots or WikiProjects or something intended to put a stop to the competition for the title of World's Longest "Stub"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Bots can help. Obviously a bot cannot decide whether an article qualifies as a "stub". But bots could identify long articles labeled "stubs" and call those to the attention of humans who could then consider whether to delete the "sub" notices. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the "New stub templates section", most importantly removing the section on {{ metastub}} and adding in a guideline on the size of stub icons. I removed the metastub section for two reasons: firstly, it's not how stub templates are usually created, and secondly, a lot of editors clearly have problems understanding it - I regularly check the nonexistent Category:B stubs and frequently find considerable numbers of stubs "relating to A" categorised in there. Grutness... wha? 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Stub syntax (e.g., what code do you actually insert into a document to designate it as a stub?) should be highlighted as an obvious entry in (near the top of) this article. (I can't even find it AT ALL in this article, except for the example of how to invoke a particular template, e.g., the example for {{Writers-stub}}.
Can't you just put "{{ stub}}" (no quotes) in an article to designate an article as a stub? If so (or whatever the syntax is), this info should be prominently included in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of this entry. Anyone agree? philiptdotcom ( talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Zaranoff is a alchoholic drink. People prefer it with a little squess of Faxe kondi. Tests has showed that peole prefer it with a Faxe Knondi. (panel of 8 people). in general it i very comfortable to be intoxicated by exactly that drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.107.38 ( talk) 23:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How hard and fast is the stub placement protocol. I find that many sports articles that contain navboxes look better with a stub immediately below the external links but filling any gap between links and the navbox. Just wondering if there is any flexibility on this or whether it is a hard and fast rule. Beyond the aesthetic reasons I believe it would increase the improve of stub-rated articles as more people would read the stub and expand the article. Londo 06 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I visited this page to raise the same question as Londo06, and maybe propose to place the stub-template above the "footer nav-boxes"! For it to make any impact on the reader to actually see it and maybe expand the article, this is for the better IMO... Look at this article about Ron Lewin; here I didn't see the template, so I moved it to the "white space" between the References and the "footer nav-boxes". Anyone see what I mean? lil2mas ( talk) 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)