Template talk:Stub

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Horizontal line (use sparingly) I have created a proper category for "short articles". Can someone please add the following text to this template:

<includeonly>[[Category:Short articles]]</includeonly>

Thanks, Selket 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree any administrators looking forward to this? this is really helpful thanks. --Artaxiad 03:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Our community has decided against this category several times. User Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub instead. PTO 03:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That looks nice thanks. --Artaxiad 04:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the recent changes made to this template, I'd like to insist that, as this template is widely used, any change to it may cause an additional load to Wiki servers, which should be avoided unless the change is really important. - Huji ^reply 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can someone please remove the space between it and the period? Thanks! нмŵוτнτ 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 Done · Tygrrr... 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone needs to put Category:Stubs in the template so that stubs are automatically in a category. --BirdsArmy (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The category has been purposely left off. After a discussion here it was decided to remove the category because it made it difficult to determine which articles were missing categories. If you would like to help improve articles that are stubs, you can use the What links here button to find them. · Tygrrr... 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. -BirdsArmy (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can someone put this on the page?: <includeonly>[[Category:Stubs]]</includeonly> --16:23, 16 March 2008 (AEDT) Claimgoal

I'm doing my sort-of-annual look through the stub-types made in the past year and a bit of stub sorting, and I've realised that I missed the main stub type template when I did it last year in terms of standardising them all to call the same code in the same way. So:

{{editprotected}}

Can one of you lovely, lovely admins please alter the page to the following:

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub">[[File:Wiki letter w.svg|30px]] ''This [[Wikipedia:Stub|short article]] can be made longer.  You can help Wikipedia by <span class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} adding to it]''.</div ><includeonly>[[Category:Stubs<noinclude>|</noinclude>]]</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Sorry about the lack of linebreaks, resulting in a scrollbar. Danke. Goblin 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!Reply

 Done fr33kman 14:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Change "short article" to "short page" for consistency with the rest of the Simple English Wikipedia. 209.232.149.23 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Not done Stubs are specifically about articles in mainspace, pages refers to items in any name space. -Djsasso (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is not the main Wikipedia, this is the simple English Wikipedia. I would like to change the template to:

And the documentation is kept from the template, just didn’t want the text in my message to be messy. Tristan Jon August Sonnier (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This adds more complexity to something should be relatively simple. and more so it may discourage new Wikipedia users 76.7.54.54 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply