Template talk:Stub

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)

I don't think we should be deleting any stub articles, isn't SOME info better then NONE? ~Uniju(T-C-E)

Well most articles only state obvious and can hurt the wikis image, I'd rather have no info then one line stubs. Xzelion^ETC

Well, there's a difference between "Pirate Goomba is a Pirate goomba." style article and other that state some info, but could be expanded greatly.

Gofer

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)

Yup, categorizing is a totally different feature thanks to <includeonly> Marioguy1 (talk)

That's actually a splendid idea! - Gabumon^(talk) 18:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

Merge {{stub-section}} contents with {{stub}}

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

NO CHANGES 1-0-6

I am proposing here instead of at {{stub-section}} because I thought it would be neater that way. Anyways, I had a discussion over at Template talk:stub-section about merging {{stub}} with {{stub-section}} 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 {{stub-section}} existed because I was using {{stub}} all this time.

There were concerns about Category:Articles with stub sections and Category:Stubs being combined into one category. The two categories will remain intact. That was already addressed before concerns were raised. This bit of code decides if it should go in Category:Articles with stub sections or Category:Stubs:
<includeonly>[[Category:{{#if: {{{section|}}}|Section}} Stubs]]</includeonly>

Proposer: Wildgoosespeeder (talk)
Deadline: February 27, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Add section=yes Scripting to {{stub}}

1. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Sounds like a good idea.

Do Nothing

1. Baby Luigi (talk) Was a little bit late to the party, since I commented here before realizing the proposal is active, but I'll say it again: I think it's better off if those two are different. While I do see the benefits in the long run by a little tweaking around with improvement templates to make them match consistency and therefore make it easier for new and experienced editors alike to use (therefore I completely disagree with the appeal to tradition that we shouldn't improve accessibility because it's too much of a "hassle" while ignoring the long term benefits), I also see the benefits in keeping them separate since I feel these two entities are distinct enough to warrant their own separate template. Also, with the whole tweaking thing, if the accessibility lends itself to messy coding as Walkazo had brought up, then I would be opposed to it as well, hence why my vote is staying in oppose.
2. Walkazo (talk) - Due to the different designs, wording, categorization, link and clear functions, merging the templates requires five switchers, plus an extra one nested within one of them to get the optional section link working, and at that point, might as well just stick to two templates. Just because it's doable doesn't mean it's worth it to jam them together (unlike the superficial single word changes needed for all the other template), and sometimes having a pair of similar-but-different things is okay (this isn't the only case). The unobtrusive footnote-style Stub templates are already completely different from top-of-the-page/section notice templates in design and function, so if they're different in execution as well, that doesn't seem like a big problem to me.
3. RandomYoshi (talk) – The templates are completely different. Completely. Different. This is a non-issue. These templates exist literally everywhere on the Wiki. Indeed, doing this would be even more taxing than just doing the reasonable thing: doing nothing. This is a wholly inefficient way of dealing with this. Awful. Bad. Never supporting this.
4. Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. Lot of work for little pay off. As has been said in the past, repeatedly and directly to the proposer, this is a non-issue.
5. Bazooka Mario (talk) It's rather unfortunate that the template was created years ago and thus gave it a lot of time to be widely used to the point where attempting to nest stub-section as a version of stub would be impractical. Per all.
6. AfternoonLight (talk) I'll say per all!

Comments

Baby Luigi (talk), look at File:Glide64 2.png. It can put in one of two categories thanks to {{#if}}. Can you please change or remove your vote? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 03:16, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Walkazo (talk), I don't see much of a design difference between my sandbox and {{stub}}/{{stub-section}}. As for the switches, there isn't that many and it is very easy to work with. I can understand having 50 or so and the code is a mess. I tried to keep it as clean as possible. If you have suggestions to make it even cleaner, voice them! --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 16:31, 13 February 2016 (EST)

If anyone is worried about edits that transclude {{stub-section}} would not be worth the time, I can perform all those edits. Or maybe I'm not getting why people think this is too much work considering I got the code near-finalized and I would be the one to make the edits. All it would take is one template edit via copypasta by a moderator and I can get to work. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 03:41, 19 February 2016 (EST)

More information about what needs to be expanded

This template would be better if we added something in the coding that allows a user to put what needs to be expanded. For example, the user could type

{{Stub|add more information about the Star Coins)}}

and they would get this:

Mr squid Talk Edits 11:21, 10 February 2017 (EST)

I support this addition. 'Course, the "stub" template usually means the page/section just needs to be expanded in general, but still, I like this idea. 11:46, 10 February 2017 (EST)

Should a talk page proposal be created?--Super Mario Fan ⁶⁷ (T•C•S) 20:32, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Formatting problems

As currently demonstrated by the Porcupuffer page's Mario Kart Arcade GP DX section, this template seems to work as a {{br}} when a somewhat-large image is present, which doesn't look too good. Can this be fixed? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2018 (EST)

Repurpose this template

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: Friday, January 3, 2025, 21:03 GMT

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 5 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

This template has always stuck out because of its non-standard template design and the fact that it's placed at the bottom of the page. Judging from the discussions above, it seems we were going for a non-intrusive "footnote" style with the template, but wouldn't a notice saying that a page is lacking information be important enough to be placed at the top like the other commonly used notices? Even Wikipedia treats its missing info templates as standard top-of-page/section notices.

The template also didn't allow users to add a reason parameter for a long time (before Porple recently implemented one). A lot of the time if a page was missing information and we wanted to specify it, we tended to use {{rewrite-expand}} just because it has a reason parameter and it was the closest thing to a {{stub}} with a reason, even though there was no rewriting needed.

I propose that we redesign the template to use the same standard design as templates like {{rewrite}} and {{construction}}, and be treated the same way as well (that is, including it at the top of the page or section), not only for consistency but because it's much more eye-catching to users (which is the point with these notices). This design would also make the reason parameter stand out better, whereas it looks awkwardly tacked on and blends in with the text if it were retained in the current design.

The design would look like this, with the text modified to be more in line with the other notices:

This article is a stub. Please consider expanding the article to include any missing information. Specifics: Missing descriptions

{{stub|Missing descriptions}}

Proposer: Mario jc (talk)
Deadline: January 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Mario jc (talk) - Per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Yes, please. I don't like how the current notice looks, and I like the idea of keeping it uniform with others such as {{rewrite}} and the ability to add a reason.
3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
4. Hewer (talk) I've never understood why this template gets special treatment to make it less visible, and I've also never understood why we don't just have a template to say there's missing information without a rewrite being needed, so this is a good solution to both problems.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) I do like this, and I agree with the color picked.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) This is absolutely one of those hold-overs from the early days of the wiki. We're all in favor of more consistency!
7. EvieMaybe (talk) while i'm here, can i suggest we make the blue on these templates lighter? it'd make it easier to read them.
8. Technetium (talk) Per all.
9. Jdtendo (talk) Per uniformity with similar templates.
10. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.

#Rykitu (talk) Per all, as long as the Mario face stays

Oppose

1. Rykitu (talk) 0/10 no Mario face

Comments

Honestly, our only complaint is that we think it could maybe have a different color to help it visually stand out more compared to templates like Rewrite. Maybe an orange? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:42, December 29, 2024 (EST)

Given the recent addition of the to-do list in the front page, and how it is divided by "sections", I thought it would be better if similar templates had similar colors, considering the to-do list might one day inherit those same colors. So to me having all of the rewrite, expand, stub, and maybe even construction templates be the same color would be a positive.— Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 14:55, December 29, 2024 (EST)

That's actually a pretty smart idea. We're a little surprised nobody else thought of that! The only real exceptions we'd like to request are that delete and delete request should probably be kept black and grey respectively, to make them stand out more. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:49, December 29, 2024 (EST)

@Rykitu It's not; it's being redesigned to be in line with other notices like {{rewrite}}, so the image will be removed. Mario JC 21:09, December 29, 2024 (EST)

That's fine. I just would've preferred if it stayed because I considered the stub notice as a wiki meme like Pirate Goomba. Rykitu (talk)

Wikis are for professional conduct, not for placing memes around the site. So voting for the Mario graphic to stay because of what one perceives as an Internet meme on this site deviates from what the proposal actually concerns. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:31, December 29, 2024 (EST)

@Super Mario RPG I don’t think it ever was a meme. It was to me because something about it was just funny. And I know this is a serious wiki. I’m not like one of those vandals. It’s just my personal opinion. Rykitu (talk)

I also just don’t see anything wrong with what it is right now outside of it just being raised to the top of the page. And I don’t want to argue anymore about an image on a notice template. Rykitu (talk)

It's just an image, and a head of Mario isn't really a good visualization of what a stub is. It's probably perceived as iconic from how long it's been around. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:16, December 30, 2024 (EST)

Yeah, iconic. I just assumed it was a meme because I saw this userbox that was spread around saying that their userpage wasn’t a stub with that same low resolution image of Mario. And the image in low quality was what I thought to be the joke. Rykitu (talk)