Template talk:Stub/Archive 3

message: A new type of stub has been created: it's called a substub. Substubs are like regular stubs, only even smaller. You can read more about the difference between stubs and substubs here, or view examples of stubs vs. substubs. There is also a new substub template message; the new message is meant to replace the normal stub message, but only where, of course, an article is a substub instead of a stub. The new message looks like:
This article is a substub. A substub is even smaller than a normal stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
You can use this new message by either replacing  with  in cases when a stub is more accurately described as a substub, or simply inserting  at the bottom of an article. Many substubs are automatically listed on Wikipedia:Shortpages. You can discuss this new type of stub here, on the template message's talk page, or, preferably, on the substub talk page itself. -- Mike Storm 03:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE: New type of stub 

message: THE STUB MESSAGE IS STUPID SO I BLANKED IT. --216.229.223.247 09:09, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very nice.  Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been removed.  I have protected the stub page since in the past people have said it should be discussed on this talk page first anyway.  I notice that many of the other significant templates were already protected anyway. --ssd 12:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Random edits to the template

message: in HTML (and XHTML) a tag can only have one class= in it. MediaWiki removes all but the last one. They're supposed to be combined, class="boilerplate metadata". Goplat 03:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid HTML 

message: Psst. Add class="plainlinks". That is all. Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 04:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ditch the arrow 

message: This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
Does the message really need two links to the same page ("stub" and "help") in its two-sentence length? 65.116.19.243 19:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that way it's more likely that both people who like nouns and people who like verbs will click through and read the manual. (Originally it was two different pages for those two links but they're merged nowadays.) --Joy [shallot] 08:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Two links to the same place?

message: Would some fix the template so that it looks reasonable in Cologne Blue? The current format (from 23:27, 2004 Sep 30) glues the message to the last line of the article text. Thanks -- User:Docu
:Second the motion, see "Format Request" above. — Bill 23:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cologne Blue

message: I have found that even the stub categories are getting large and unwieldy.  So here is my suggested example, used in this case for simple stub, though it can be applied to any other category of stub:
 This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
 
 
In this example,  is the first letter of the title and  is the second letter of the title.  That way, the stubs can still be broken into categories, they won't all be listed under the same letter.
•→Iñgólemo←• 04:14, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
:Breaking up Stubs is a good idea, but it may be more useful to break it up by topic — see :Category:Stub categories — and guide the templates into the categories in such a way that people interested and knowledgeable in some particular field will be given a list of pages needing improvement: along the lines of  and , except sharper. I've been adding . BUT the system (yours or mine) will only work if everyone puts the sharper stub markers on the page rather just plain ; and right now, even  and  are not that widely used, let alone the sharper ones that already exist. — Bill 12:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking up the category 

message: Do we really need to tack on:
: (select the "Edit this page" link)
to random stub messages? Isn't the link of the text "expanding it" enough? (Do we really want people who aren't acquainted with this concept of "clicking" on "links" to edit an encyclopedia?)
In any event, it should be consistent. Only some have this. --Joy [shallot] 19:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "select the "Edit this page" link" 

message: why does this display incorrectly, Card_magic? BrokenSegue 05:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A bug indeed.  Missing right bracket on last external link.  Fixed.  Thanks for pointing it out. --ssd 05:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug 

message: How about adding horizontal lines and center-align the text line? Like this:
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
Does it look better? // Solkoll 14:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, but I rather have the stub notice not that blaringly obvious. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout fix? 

message: I think articles would look much better if stubs (and other wiki messages) were separated from the main content of an article via ----. I've done this on my installation of MediaWiki and it does look better! Adraeus 13:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ---- 

message: I attempted to make some changed to this template, but every time I tried I got sent an error page. The current version has the text too close to the image, and whacky HTML that could mess up some browsers. So, could an admin please edit the template to read this:? 
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
Thanks!  ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That div is redundant, you can put the class and id on the table itself. The background color is also unnecessary since  is only used in the article namespace. Goplat 01:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add a div. The only changes is that I defined the variables (something="var"), made some HTML lowercase (for XHTML), and increased the cellspacing a bit to make the image further away from the text...  ✏ OvenFresh☺ 22:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, JRM fulfilled my request. :)  ✏ OvenFresh☺ 22:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No server response...

message: Now that only 200 articles are loaded at a time, can we put stubs back into :Category:Stub, or is it still too much for the servers? -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we put the template back into the category now? 

message: The template coulkd be simplified (hopefully with at least a little reduction in server strain) quite simply by the following method:
1) Merge the pages Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and Wikipedia:Perfect stub article into one article (there is a lot of overlap anyway) or at the very least put links between them.
2) Change the template message to:
:This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it]
It may only help a little, but any help might, erm, help.  Grutness|hello?  11:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reserve underlining for links.--Patrick 02:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
The underlining is unnecessary (and, for the purposes of my suggestion, an irrelevance). It could be bolded, or plain text. The point is that the number of links on the template is reduced by 20% (leaving the edit function, the picture, the stub category, and only one other link). Surely this will help the servers, no?  Grutness|hello?  08:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it
...and we've got a 40% reduction in links - one page, one picture, and one category. Wouldn't that help?  Grutness|hello?  12:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a painless way of simplifying the template

message: Is it really necessary or desirable? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
* I don't think that it is. It clutters up an otherwise simple statement with too much information, which is available directly from the already-linked Wikipedia:Perfect stub article page. – ClockworkSoul 22:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition by  Eleassar777