Template talk:Stub

WANDALISM! --Kels 22:01, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Both cats?
Do we need to include both Articles needing expansion and Articles needing RWification as categories for stub? Can't we just have one? Sterilesnore! 10:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd be happy with just one. Either the first one, or just "stubs"?  ħ uman  16:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

New template
My I boldly propose: MOAR CONTENT Otherwise we will be forced to pad it out with Hitler comparisons. This for the template? - User   02:56, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Nice "template", but no, I don't think so... it's an inside joke, far more so than the goat, and is very CP-centric to boot.  ħ uman  14:53, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Can we use this for funspace? -- Nx  / talk 11:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to set up a switch to do it, sure. 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let's get rid of Ed Poor off this template
It's bad judgement in my part. It's too much of an inside joke. Sterile 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's funny, but of course most times it appears out of context. Maybe we need a special stubedpoor template in addition?  21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More discrete
Ignoring that Hitler idiot above can we make this a little more discrete, say by stealing ASK's or something like that? 12:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should think of the non-wiki-fluent crowd and explain what it means. -- Nx  / talk 12:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

''This article does not have very many words in it, please add some to make it longer.
 * Better? 12:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you take that off Simple English Wikipedia? -- Nx  / talk 12:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I find their material too challenging. 12:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I quite liked the old one. I think this new version blends into the text too much. 15:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Error
When the template gets put on the same line (where Stubbot puts it) it renders the page oddly. I think it may be due to the lack of a float parameter but I don't have much of an idea about the quirks of CSS. 09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It should have a line break above it to give it separation. 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it's only on fun pages but...
...I have seen Hitler twelve times too many today. let's get rid of that stupidity. text only would be fine with me. Same for all spaces. 07:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye! 07:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted to an older, simpler version. 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Specialized stubs
This would be a rather large and slightly tedious project, but would anyone mind if I created separate stub templates for different categories, like a politics stub, an economics stub, a logic stub, a religion stub, etc.? The stub template is supposed to be an easy way to find articles that need to be expanded, and I think having specialized stub subcategories would be very helpful if someone wanted to just find stubs related to a particular subject. For example:

This Conservapedia-related article is a stub. You can help RationalWiki by [ expanding it]. This article relating to law is a stub. You can help RationalWiki by [ expanding it].

20:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about adding an argument to the existing template, and if one is used, an alternate form is output? That way there still only one template.  Use like stub|law (in brackets of course).  20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And it would also leave an appropriate category, of course. 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Huw's idea—build off the existing structures, as replacing them all would be quite tedious.  20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We would still have to edit every single time the stub template is used. It wouldn't be any less tedious. Yes, there wouldn't be any new templates added, but I don't see that as a problem. 20:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmph. That's my bubble burst.  I still like your idea though; it would be quite helpful.   20:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll give Human's suggestion a try. More wikicode to deal with... 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please indeed do it this way - the Wikipedia way has confused me from day one as an editor, nice as it is as a reader - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For your consideration: template:stub/sandbox 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you set it up so that the specialized stubs equate to a category on the article I can have stubbot change them. So if an article is in category law it will add the law sub-template, etc. tmtoulouse 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that's probably how it'll work. 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be faster than doing it by hand. By the way, how would stubbot handle multiple categories?  The worst-case scenario here is a stack of a half-dozen "stub" templates on one page, which sounds really unappealing (though we may have no choice if we want the system to be effective).   21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Likely there will only be half a dozen or so sub templates. These should be major categories. Stubbot will only assign based on those 6 major categories, and likely do something like which ever is listed first. tmtoulouse 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Whatever is easiest for you to implement. 21:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubbot doing it to major categories would be the best solution I think. Perhaps selecting based on the ones that have the sidebar nav templates? Those represent our major categories at the moment, although I still think the pseudoscience cat is still too broad. It's definitely a system worth setting up. 22:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can set my bot up to do it. 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to implement this on category:politics, see if any objections materialize afterwards. And I take the consensus here as authorization, I'm not trying to make these kinds of changes without community consensus. 03:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I hope you are going to use an argument in the "stub" template. 2.  Rather than go bot-nuts, why not do a few manually and see how that flies?  04:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes 2. It would be the exact same thing if a human did it or a bot, and this task is repetitive and does not require human intellect to make choices, but if you insist, I will do it manually first. 04:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tested it at Intact dilation and extraction. Is it, er, good? To your liking, then? (Never mind the redlink cat) 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should do it more specifically, i.e. not but,. 05:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am now implementing as a demonstration on category:abortion, please to provide feedback. 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * About the format: what should the cat be called? "[Abortion]-related stubs" or "[Abortion]-related articles needing expansion" ? Personally, the former is simpler for me. 02:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the catting is probably gonna be ugly. And no one else but you will know or care how this works.  If I were you I would just leave the cats alone, at least for now.  05:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub categories not showing up?
This template seems to be populating categories like Category:Conspiracy theories-related stubs correctly, but I'm not seeing an actual link to that category at the bottom of the stub articles. Is that correct? --Gurneyslade (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's why it says "This category is not shown on its member pages by default."  13:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Is that desirable? I was looking to fix up some stubs after realising that stub articles sometimes give bad Google search results, but it took me a while to find an actual list of them. We could wikilink the word "stub", perhaps? --Gurneyslade (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's intentional because maintenance categories are more useful as things for users to find via the maintenance pages (here, for instance) than to show up on the actual content. Scarlet A.pngsshole 15:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Wikipedia just throws them in with the other categories, which I think probably does more good than harm - most wikis want users to take an interest in maintenance, even if they're passing through, and "this article is a bit weak, sorry, here are some other weak ones" isn't a bad starting point. --Gurneyslade (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also add a link to the Articles for deletion page
Maybe if it's a stub, it's not worth keeping. Just put one more sentence in, saying "If this stub isn't going to go anywhere, consider proposing it for deletion." 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I hope you get that NuttyRoux was sarcastic.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But I hope you understand that Nutty is God, and even His/Her sarcasm is Truth. 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

SHIT!
Didn't mean to edit this one... I apologize whole-heartedly. PacWalker 02:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone else for a permaban? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)