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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
What is the stub template that can be used for an article about a
television program series (instead of tagging the article the regular {{
stub}}
template)? --
Lightsup55 (
T |
C ) 04:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Adminstrator, please add " scn:Wikipedia:Stub" to the language link. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicilianu101 ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
For articles with a {{ future}} tag, is it worth adding the stub tag? Does it make sense to do so when all available sources have been used for articles which are still in the making? Curious to know people's general thoughts before I revert some adds to an article and possibly start an edit war. -- Harish ( Talk) - 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new section to trhe page. We seem to spend a huge amount of time at WP:WSS and WP:SFD explaining why wikiprojects are better off with talk-page templates than stub templates. It's probably been worth putting something on WP:STUB to explain the differences and advantages of the two types of template for quite some time. Please have a look at it, check whether it needs amending. Grutness... wha? 05:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
sczxc —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
222.155.165.35 (
talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
a page should be like the length of a woman's skirt. long enough to cover everything, yet short enough to keepit interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.51.182 ( talk) 16:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What's the official status of {{ asbox}}? Isn't it better than substing {{ metastub}}? GregorB ( talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all - it's been pointed out to me that WP:STUB is the nearest we have to a stub manual of style, but that it isn't really in line with other MOS-type documents, and quite a bit which would be on there if it were a MOS document is actually in aa separate area ( WP:WSS/NG). Is it worth revamping the Wikipedia:Stub page, possibly along the lines of this? -
It would make it clear that the naming "guidelines' have been regarded as conventions for some time, and would make them a distinct part of WP:STUB, without lengthening the page. It would also make it easier for it to conform to the other MoS pages. (crossposted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, but please make any responses here, to keep the discussion in one place) Grutness... wha? 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to state clearly what makes a stub. CatScan defines as stubs articles that are having less than 512 bytes or less than 4 links (main namespace only). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
How short does a stub have to be to be a stub? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone needs to design a bot to change "[[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]]" to point to Wikipedia:Stub as the former now redirects to the latter. -- AlastairIrvine ( talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just letting everyone here know that I posted a proposal at
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Stub_Changes.
—
Ω (
talk) 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." Why? – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all - I've added a section to list useful tools used in finding and sorting stubs. Unfortunately these come and go with some regularity - interiot's tool is long gone, and cattersect is as well. If anyone knows of any other working tools for stub location/sorting, please add them under the "Tools" header. Grutness... wha? 01:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but I noticed that articles that are stubbed with 2000s novel (see [1]) have an extra bracket and pipe after the stub.
If I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.
Thanks. -- -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 09:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
PS - if you find any similar problems in future, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting is probably a better place to post this sort of query. Grutness... wha? 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. Here is a sample of the edits that it will make if approved. – xeno talk 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This guideline says "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it". Why 2? I always leave only 1, as between all other things, and see no reason to break conformity. Debresser ( talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers. The text there ("the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines") was added in this edit on 22 June 2008 by Nurg with the edit summary "including details harvested from other guideline pages". So he got it from here, since the line here predates his edit. Debresser ( talk) 19:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The text under discussion was added in this edit on 22 April 2007 by SMcCandlish. He added the reason inside the text "to prevent the stub template(s) from butting up against the preceding content when the page is rendered". For reason I do not understand this is either not the case any more, or it is no longer the opinion of editors that such "butting up" is too close. Debresser ( talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
To remove the line "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it" from this guideline, since there seems to be no necessity to have such a rule. Debresser ( talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
<!--end of body text-->
, but using two lines seems to be the most lightweight way to do it. My !vote is against killing the 2-line principle.COMMENT. I haven't really been following this, since too much talk of formatting makes my eyes glaze over, but... if an article is correctlyn formatted, then we have the article, then a blank line, then the categories, then a blank line, then the stub templates. In other words, even with only one blank line betweent he categories and template, we effectively have two between the article text and the stub template. Grutness... wha? 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem occurred, IIRC, when the stubs followed a navbox. It exercised my mind for some time, trying to design a template which would have something at the top (blank lines in this case) only if it did not follow another instance of that type of template. Eventaully I had to conclude it was a CSS solution or nothing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
One line is the same as zero lines, I think. A possible kludge would be to end Asbox with <!-- and start it with
<font color=white> -->
<Rest of template>
Of course this would destroy al the interwikis, since the stubs aren't at the actual absolute very end. <sigh> CSS it is. Rich Farmbrough, 09:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
I use wikipedia often for clarification on obscure and highly specific science topics; I often see short articles classified as stubs when there is only a paragraph of useful information worth mentioning on that topic. Should I be bold and "de-stub" an article that is in my opinion complete if it is only a paragraph long? user: npatchett
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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
What is the stub template that can be used for an article about a
television program series (instead of tagging the article the regular {{
stub}}
template)? --
Lightsup55 (
T |
C ) 04:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Adminstrator, please add " scn:Wikipedia:Stub" to the language link. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicilianu101 ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
For articles with a {{ future}} tag, is it worth adding the stub tag? Does it make sense to do so when all available sources have been used for articles which are still in the making? Curious to know people's general thoughts before I revert some adds to an article and possibly start an edit war. -- Harish ( Talk) - 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new section to trhe page. We seem to spend a huge amount of time at WP:WSS and WP:SFD explaining why wikiprojects are better off with talk-page templates than stub templates. It's probably been worth putting something on WP:STUB to explain the differences and advantages of the two types of template for quite some time. Please have a look at it, check whether it needs amending. Grutness... wha? 05:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
sczxc —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
222.155.165.35 (
talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
a page should be like the length of a woman's skirt. long enough to cover everything, yet short enough to keepit interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.51.182 ( talk) 16:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What's the official status of {{ asbox}}? Isn't it better than substing {{ metastub}}? GregorB ( talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi all - it's been pointed out to me that WP:STUB is the nearest we have to a stub manual of style, but that it isn't really in line with other MOS-type documents, and quite a bit which would be on there if it were a MOS document is actually in aa separate area ( WP:WSS/NG). Is it worth revamping the Wikipedia:Stub page, possibly along the lines of this? -
It would make it clear that the naming "guidelines' have been regarded as conventions for some time, and would make them a distinct part of WP:STUB, without lengthening the page. It would also make it easier for it to conform to the other MoS pages. (crossposted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, but please make any responses here, to keep the discussion in one place) Grutness... wha? 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to state clearly what makes a stub. CatScan defines as stubs articles that are having less than 512 bytes or less than 4 links (main namespace only). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
How short does a stub have to be to be a stub? -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( talk) 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone needs to design a bot to change "[[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]]" to point to Wikipedia:Stub as the former now redirects to the latter. -- AlastairIrvine ( talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just letting everyone here know that I posted a proposal at
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Stub_Changes.
—
Ω (
talk) 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." Why? – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi all - I've added a section to list useful tools used in finding and sorting stubs. Unfortunately these come and go with some regularity - interiot's tool is long gone, and cattersect is as well. If anyone knows of any other working tools for stub location/sorting, please add them under the "Tools" header. Grutness... wha? 01:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but I noticed that articles that are stubbed with 2000s novel (see [1]) have an extra bracket and pipe after the stub.
If I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.
Thanks. -- -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 09:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
PS - if you find any similar problems in future, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting is probably a better place to post this sort of query. Grutness... wha? 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. Here is a sample of the edits that it will make if approved. – xeno talk 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This guideline says "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it". Why 2? I always leave only 1, as between all other things, and see no reason to break conformity. Debresser ( talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers. The text there ("the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines") was added in this edit on 22 June 2008 by Nurg with the edit summary "including details harvested from other guideline pages". So he got it from here, since the line here predates his edit. Debresser ( talk) 19:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The text under discussion was added in this edit on 22 April 2007 by SMcCandlish. He added the reason inside the text "to prevent the stub template(s) from butting up against the preceding content when the page is rendered". For reason I do not understand this is either not the case any more, or it is no longer the opinion of editors that such "butting up" is too close. Debresser ( talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
To remove the line "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it" from this guideline, since there seems to be no necessity to have such a rule. Debresser ( talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
<!--end of body text-->
, but using two lines seems to be the most lightweight way to do it. My !vote is against killing the 2-line principle.COMMENT. I haven't really been following this, since too much talk of formatting makes my eyes glaze over, but... if an article is correctlyn formatted, then we have the article, then a blank line, then the categories, then a blank line, then the stub templates. In other words, even with only one blank line betweent he categories and template, we effectively have two between the article text and the stub template. Grutness... wha? 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem occurred, IIRC, when the stubs followed a navbox. It exercised my mind for some time, trying to design a template which would have something at the top (blank lines in this case) only if it did not follow another instance of that type of template. Eventaully I had to conclude it was a CSS solution or nothing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
One line is the same as zero lines, I think. A possible kludge would be to end Asbox with <!-- and start it with
<font color=white> -->
<Rest of template>
Of course this would destroy al the interwikis, since the stubs aren't at the actual absolute very end. <sigh> CSS it is. Rich Farmbrough, 09:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
I use wikipedia often for clarification on obscure and highly specific science topics; I often see short articles classified as stubs when there is only a paragraph of useful information worth mentioning on that topic. Should I be bold and "de-stub" an article that is in my opinion complete if it is only a paragraph long? user: npatchett