Template talk:Stub
From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia written in simple English for easy reading.
Sorry! I accidentally messed up the code for this template. can someone put the picture back on? Sorry about that. Charlie123 13:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Done, but then interesting note from User:Netoholic about why the previous links were the way they were (he reverted the changes), that we shouldn't always/often (?) link from here to the English Wikipedia. I keep learning. Shenme 03:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Bold edit: "needs someone to make it better"
I went in to make one change: "in need of work" -> "needs work". That one I'm pretty confident of.
While there, it dawned on me that the use of work could be considered idiomatic. The article really needs improvement! But I tried to simplify to "someone to make it better". However, that complicates the sentence structure.
So forgive me if I've made a bad edit, but please consider not reverting but rather editing to "This article needs _____." Cheers, PhilipR 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Upon further reflection I think something like "This article needs more information" would be good, except that information isn't a BE 850 word. "This article needs to be longer"? "This article needs more words"? "This article needs more material"? (Material is BE 850, but that use seems idiomatic.) I don't want to be guilty of continual futzing so I'll leave it until I get more input. - PhilipR 20:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Stubs
Any reason not to add [[Category:Stubs]]? I noticed three articles are tin the Stub category, singular, but my understanding is that names should follow the Wikipedia format. Any objections to adding this to the template? -- PhilipR 17:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Considering that nearly every article here is a stub, there is no value, and indeed, a burden, to putting them all into a bloated category stating the obvious. I don't think EN:'s system is the right direction for us. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, we need to reduce the high % of stubs, but you do have a point. I assume, however, that something like en: templates for "geography stub" or "music stub" or whatever are legitimate, and being able to find all stubs would help in that categorization. Would it be OK to add a [[Category:Stubs]] until we're able to categorize the obvious ones? - PhilipR 19:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- The category has been added to the template and created, following (really two) discussions at Simple Talk. Now, any new stub (or whenever an article with a stub tag has been edited) will be added to the category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] New-look template
What do you think of the new-look template? I think I like it back the way it was. Archer7 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Three comments: First, I think that calling the stub article-name-related is not at all helpful. Calling it a stub is fine, but this is not a way to get around not having stub categories, since every single article will then look like it is a separate category. Please fix that part.
- Second, I do think that "make it longer" is better than "make it better," since the only reason something is considered a stub is because it is short. Good call.
- Third, Netoholic has reverted this template three times in the past to cut out the category reference (possibly among other reasons). I and many others may find it useful to have the category reference (the tag is very limited in usefulness otherwise), but I wouldn't be surprised if Netoholic reverts it again, regardless of discussion or consensus, and ignoring any other changes to the template. I am not assuming bad faith, I am looking at history. The last time he/she reverted it was during/after the last discussion, when stubs were generally accepted, though stub categories were not. As I have mentioned in other places and on other topics, if one person does not want something, that person does not have to do/use it, but that person should not actively oppose the efforts of others to do/use that thing. --Cromwellt|talk 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] simple english
If "Edit" is too complicated to stay and is replaced with "change this page", why isn't "stub" replaced with "very short"? 217.132.114.182 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
