Template talk:Stub: Difference between revisions
(fixing something) |
(→Merge {{tem|sectionstub}} contents with {{tem|stub}}: new section) |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::Yup, categorizing is a totally different feature thanks to <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::Yup, categorizing is a totally different feature thanks to <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:::That's actually a splendid idea! - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 18:24, 24 December 2009 (EST) | :::That's actually a splendid idea! - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 18:24, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ||
== Merge {{tem|sectionstub}} contents with {{tem|stub}} == | |||
{{TPP}} | |||
I am proposing here instead of at {{tem|sectionstub}} because I thought it would be neater that way. Anyways, I had a discussion over at [[Template talk:Sectionstub]] about merging {{tem|stub}} with {{tem|sectionstub}} and came up with [[User:Wildgoosespeeder/Stub/sandbox]] that is being used on [[:File:Glide64 2.png]] for testing. It would also be better to remember and keep track of one less template. Seems kind of redundant to have two. Essentially, I want to match our other templates, such as {{tem|construction}}, {{tem|rewrite}}, and {{tem|rewrite-expand}}, in terms of function (<code>section=yes</code>). I am not totally against doing the opposite, like towards {{tem|rewrite}} for example ({{tem|sectionrewrite}}). I am looking for some consistency with our templates. I didn't know that {{tem|sectionstub}} existed because I was using {{tem|stub}} all this time. | |||
'''Proposer''': {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}<br> | |||
'''Deadline''': February 27, 2016, 23:59 GMT | |||
===Add <code>section=yes</code> Scripting to {{tem|stub}}=== | |||
#{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} Sounds like a good idea. | |||
===Split Similar Templates to Match {{tem|stub}} and {{tem|sectionstub}}=== | |||
===Do Nothing=== | |||
===Comments=== |
Revision as of 02:31, February 13, 2016
A nice gray border might be good. Para Yoshi Wahoo!
19:32, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
Nooooo... Not really. 3dejong
- I don't think it looks very nice. It kind of separates the template from the article. Monty Mole (Talk·Contribs) 19:43, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
I made it look a little better. Yep, still don't think it's needed. --Steve (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
Thats good. XyzCoRy123ABC 04:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Hey...
Since any article that is a stub is deleted, why do we still HAVE this template? TheGreatBlockyBoo 19:02, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- There are still a ton of stub articles on the wiki that were previously created. -- Son of Suns
- About stubs.... What if there is little info and no way to get more? TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:29, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
- There should always be a way to get more info. Be creative! -- Son of Suns
So... Once the stubs are gone, the template goes too? Max2 (talk)
- Well, we don't need to delete it, just in case stubs become okay again (which won't happen until we expand our current stubs). -- Son of Suns
- <.> Why is it that we hate stubs? TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:43, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
- WHAT HE SAID. TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:55, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
S***. Some info is better than none. XyzCoRy123ABC 04:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Stub or Rewrite-expand?
Is there any policy of when to use this template and when that one? To me, they seem to serve exactly the same purpose. I always wonder which to use on short articles (using both seems redundant). Time Questions 13:16, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- The way I saw it used, Stub seems to be used for articles that amount to nothing more than "X is a character/items/thing in [game]", while RW-expand is for article that do have informations, but incredibly unspecific and poorly written. But yeah, there's no policy for those templates. --Blitzwing 14:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Revision
Is it cool if I replace the link on "stub" to PipeProject:Unstubify instead of the category? The link to the category is unnecessary anyway since it shows up at the bottom.--Knife (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- Fine for me. BUt it will still categorize them, right? --
™ The 'Shroom 17:45, 24 December 2009 (EST)
Merge {{sectionstub}} contents with {{stub}}
This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment. |
Current time: Sunday, June 30, 2024, 09:14 GMT
I am proposing here instead of at {{sectionstub}} because I thought it would be neater that way. Anyways, I had a discussion over at Template talk:Sectionstub about merging {{stub}} with {{sectionstub}} and came up with User:Wildgoosespeeder/Stub/sandbox that is being used on File:Glide64 2.png for testing. It would also be better to remember and keep track of one less template. Seems kind of redundant to have two. Essentially, I want to match our other templates, such as {{construction}}, {{rewrite}}, and {{rewrite-expand}}, in terms of function (section=yes
). I am not totally against doing the opposite, like towards {{rewrite}} for example ({{sectionrewrite}}). I am looking for some consistency with our templates. I didn't know that {{sectionstub}} existed because I was using {{stub}} all this time.
Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
Deadline: February 27, 2016, 23:59 GMT
Add section=yes
Scripting to {{stub}}
- Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Sounds like a good idea.