Template talk:Stub/Archive 4

Maybe put a box around it??

I don't like it centered, maybe it could be distinguished from the rest of the article by putting a little box effect on it? - Stoph 03:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maaan but it is annoying centred! Catches the eye when you're trying to read the article. Please can we remove the centring? I know I've suggested it before elsewhere, but why not just make the text a little smaller? it would be less obtrusive, and would still be separate from the main text. It doesn't need to be done through the metatemplate - all it needs is < small> < /small> put around the text (without the gaps, of course). Grutness|^hello? 05:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: No image, no centering, no box. Just some simple text at the bottom of an article's main page that regular editors will notice, and casual visitors will most likely ignore. BlankVerse ∅ 06:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes that would be best for me also. - Stoph 06:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour, too. Grutness|^hello? 01:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the template - there have been numerous small - and largely unneccessary - changes to it in recent times, as well as some vandalism, and since this is such a heavily-used template, each change puts undue stress on the servers. I have no objection to people making neccessary changes to the template, but would request that any changed are discussed here on the talk page first. That way there's less risk of trivial changes or reverts. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've removed protection for now, since it isn't used that often any more thanks to WP:WSS. And also, by KBdank's request who wanted to change the category tag in there. If people want it protected once more, please let me (or Grutness) know. Radiant_>|< 14:52, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

New wording for Stub template in respect to the current opinion of the Stub template

I apologize for the long title, but to cut the message short, here's what it should be.

This article is an uncategorized stub. You can help by putting this stub into an appropriate stub category, or better yet, adding to this article.

I'm not going to mess with the coding or the linking, since there's others that can easily do that. Tell me what you think. MessedRocker 21:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think it should stay as-is because stub categorization is entirely for the use of Wikipedia's editors, and the vast majority of readers don't much care whether it's categorized or not. — Dan | Talk 21:46, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hmph, good point. But perhaps if we change the wording, we could get more editors? MessedRocker 22:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Boosh. I won! MessedRocker 11:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

PZFUN's makeover

(for reference)

I disagree with the changes to the template's appearance as well as to its wording. The fewer gray boxes per page, the better (many articles are already bogged down with templates), and a simpler message (which matches all the other stub messages) is always preferable. — Dan | Talk 03:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, for some reason, they seem to have set the Category to Wikipedia:Stub/2005/June which makes no sense. --TheParanoidOne 05:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted it as I also found fault with it. Very bold, but I don't see it as visually appealing, and the category setup isn't helpful, considering stubs are better sorted by topic. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Too wordy, too boxy, too colorful. I also disagree with PZFUN's changes. Perhaps this template needs to be protected. 4.232.105.21 10:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Space Before

(Sorry, I wasn't sure where the best place to post this would be). I find that all of the stub template text tends to be placed very closely after the element before it, like a See also or External links section. I am wondering if I am the only one who believes that an extra bit of space above the stub message might be more aesthetically pleasing? func(talk) 01:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd vote for that. I always add two newlines before the stub template, so that it isn't crammed into the article text. On plain text this is fine, but it has strange interactions with certain other types of elements though, leading to an unpredicable amount of space. --TheParanoidOne 12:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MANY people add stub without adding the proper spaces in articles, making it very weird looking. I added some space before and after else it breaks many articles. I also added back the image. Without it, it really looks like just normal text in the article and seems pretty weird. All templates we have usually include a box and image. An image here is the least we need imho Elfguy 17:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

boxes have been tried here before and quickly rejected. So has having lines above and below, and having a reduced font size. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image

Every stub template has an image next to it. Except this one. This makes it look like the text is part of the article to newcomers. What possible reason would there be not to leave the image there? Elfguy 20:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

meta:Image_server_overload_2005-03, though Mark Ryan seems to think it should be restored. I won't revert again if you insist on putting it back. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... though others might, of course. --TheParanoidOne 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue. There are many stub templates that do not have images. Have a browse through some of the ones listed on the stub types page. --TheParanoidOne 21:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most do. Refer to Wikipedia_talk:Suspend_use_of_stub_icons and you can see images are not a problem, and a recent move to remove stub images failed. Image makes it easy to see the notice as a notice, instead of just some random text added to an article.Elfguy 21:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

27% of them do. 27% is not "most". Grutness...wha? 23:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

still don't know whats the big deal against using an image to make the stub notice more obvious.Elfguy 23:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. Stub templates are not meant to be "obvious". They're meant to be unobtrusive, so that the casual reader doesn't get the in his or her face. let's face it, it's fairly easy for a reade to see that an article is short. The main purpose of them is to link to a category. They give a small message to the reader, so that if they know more they know to add to the article, and they sort the stubs into categories where editors can find them. We're not trying to put a flashy neon sign there saying "YOOHOO! STUUUB!". Grutness...wha? 00:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agreen whith Elfguy to purt an image on the stub like most odter stubs. Thank it is a good idea to put an sad face image on the stub. It symbolize that the article is sad because it is short compared to adder article, and Can fall victim of speeddy deletion. Perhaps adding som color to the stub. .**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 00:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The many template authors or editors who are using icons in their templates are ignoring the official guideline. With many stubs now sporting multiple stub templates, because they fall into multiple stub categories, and with the icons, we are getting some very cluttered little stubs. Finell 06:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

<br>?

Why have editors started adding the line break to this template? I would like to see some examples of where the line-break-less version of {{stub}} "breaks" an article, because I've never seen it. If it is only a few articles, then the line break should just be added manually above the template. On the other hand, if the line break really is necessary, then it should be added to all the stub templates. BlankVerse ∅ 11:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have not added a line break to the template, but perhaps it might be a good idea. I've seen slight problems with spacing caused by various stub templates -- I think it is particularly pronounced when the template comes after an external link or other bulletted list. For example Bath, Michigan. As far as I'm concerned, while it is somewhat unsightly, it's mostly a minor annoyance. older≠wiser 16:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I really don't like the break on stub messages. I don't know about anyone else but it looks worse to me. Sarge Baldy June 30, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to see the break on the template that having to add it ian the article itself. If there is no break and {{stub}} immediatly follows a standard paragraph (rather than the bullet of an external link), it gets glued to the last line. -- User:Docu

The reason for having the line break is not the line break itself - it's the "clear=all". When anything is style="float:[left or right]"ed, it stops following the rules of decent layout. To prevent it from crowding on top of the stub notice, the clear is added. This is not required for templates that are usually at the top of the page. This is much better accomplished by using <div style="clear:both;"></div>. If you'd like it to not be so close to the text above, you should add a margin css element (contact me and I can do this, if you don't know how). As an aside, if you are interested in this sort of thing, please check out the Usability WikiProject. –M^T 30 June 2005 09:56 (UTC)

In monobook.css, class=notice will generate a 1em margin. What's the issue? -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

A margin does not keep floated elements away on some major browsers. A floated picture or infobox may extend over where the stub section is supposed to be. Also, the <br /> tag does need that slash in it to be proper HTML, and it does need the space in it to work properly in several very old browsers. You may want to have a look at the Usability WikiProject if this interests you, and specifically the HTML sub-page. –M^T 7 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)

MediaWiki converts <br> to <br />, so it doesn't matter which is used in the wiki source. clear=all or clear:both have unforeseen effects also, sometimes pushing elements down the page and out of place. I guess we need to see examples of where the current stub template isn't working right. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)

It's good that it converts, but I think it'd still be better to use the proper form. Having your work corrected by someone else isn't a reason to do a poor job on it. I believe that the clears will only push the cleared element past any floats, which is exactly what clear should do - is this what you mean? I havn't encountered any other effects. –M^T 7 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

I propose putting Wikipedia back into the message

When license violators borrow our content without credit, the Wikpedia name in the stub notice can help maintain the authorship. Take this example [1]

lots of issues | leave me a message 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references violet/riga (t) 21:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I prefer the Wikipedia name in the template as well. This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it was always the classic stub notice, and it's been like that since, as far as I can tell, 2003. I'd always assumed that that's still what it said, and just now when I added {{stub}} to something did I notice the recent change...including the "please consider using a different template" part. Scott5114 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If we wanted to "maintain authorship", adding "Wikipedia" to the {{stub}} template is the wrong way to do that because the stub notice appears on so few pages, especially since theStub-sorting WikiProject regularly replaces the generic stub template with more specific topic stub templates. But as User:Violetriga has pointed out, it is Wikipedia policy to avoid self-references, so even that point doesn't really matter. BlankVerse ∅ 11:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Avoid self-references only applies to article content, not meta-messages like stub templates. Should we stop using the word "Wikipedia" on talk pages now, too? — Omegatron 01:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the major problems I have with the stub messages are that they are way too integrated with the rest of the article text. Thus, they are not separated enough to clearly be viewed as meta-information. For example, they are included before categories, and retained in the printable version. (The second problem with stub messages are that they are stating the obvious - hey, this is a wiki - and thus makes the reading rather noisy.) --Patrik Hägglund 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub WikiProject

What is wrong with the stub WikiProject link? It is much better to categorise stubs than to have generic ones. I mean, you don't lose anything in the process. Currently, it seems as though the majority of stubs that I land on are categorised, which is a good thing. Probably due to the WikiProject link in the first place.

The stub template is intended to encourage readers to become editors by doing a very easy-to-understand task: expanding an article on something they know about. Stub-sorting, on the other hand, is entirely for the purpose of established editors (who are well aware of the project without the presence of the sentence in this template) and its goal is entirely unclear to a reader who has never edited before. The link, therefore, is not useful and potentially confusing. — Dan | Talk 02:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with Rdsmith here - for two reasons. Firstly, although anyone can stub sort, considering the bewildering number of stub categories it's not the sort of thing that a casual Wiipedia reader is likely to get the hang of quickly. Secondly, if they're interested enough to help, the template links to Wikipedia:Stub anyway, which gives lots of details about the WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Editors need to know what type article it is, and what exactly is needed. If I were to go on a page and see that it is a stub, I might just leave it. However, if the stub makes it clear that its about a person, or a music related article, then I might just dive in if I was interested in pop culture. A stub is easy to sort, I dont think it confuses the reader.

^{Journalist C.}/ ^{Holla @ me!}

You seem to be misunderstanding a few very basic tenants of Wikipedia. Articles are for readers, not editors. That's why you are not supposed to link across namespaces, and that's why metadata is supposed to go on the talk pages (not to mention the fact that it makes it MUCH MUCH easier to reuse wikipedia content elsewhere, which is wikipedia's primary goal). What you are advocating violates both of those basic principles. →Raul654 18:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also, you need to realise that, with the current level of Category:stub, there's probably only a turnaround of a couple of days to a week between something being marked as {{stub}} and a stub sorter marking it with a more refined template. There's no need for the link on the template. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

But stubs and stub tags are for editors, or readers who will be editors; the "articles" that have them are not really articles, but partial articles. Most importantly, this recent removal of the long-standing links to the list of stub types makes it difficult to find which tag to use for which category. I doubt there is a Wikipedian who could list the stub template names from memory, let-alone keep that mental list up-to-date to account for new stub types or old ones removed from use; the list of types needs to be one click away from the page. Of course stub tags themselves are metadata, so are cleanup tags, vfd tags, vprotected, etc, but they all go on the article page, because they are important to editors -- look at the other things the Template links to: Wikipedia:Stub and Wikipedia:Find_or_fix_a_stub. In what way does a convenience link to the list of types cross the line that the other links don't?

Since stub tags are template messages and not raw text inserted into every article, other sites using content from Wikipedia would be able to just modify Template:Stub to suit their needs, in the same manner that they can suppress Vfd/Afd templates, and other messages only relevant to Wikipedia, so long the messages are in a standard location (like a template). --Mysidia (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Another vote for restoring "help Wikipedia"

The guideline page for stub messages prescribes saying "help Wikipedia," not just "help." I agree with the guideline. When I come across stub messages that just say, "You can help by," my mind involuntarily asks, "Help whom?" Saying "You can help Wikipedia by" is more concrete and invites community participation. Also, notwithstanding deprecation, authors and editors are still using this stub (or others like it). Therefore, stub messages should be edited to conform to the guideline, in my opinion. The only reason I did not make this edit myself, which was my original intent, is that I saw on this Talk page that the issue is in debate. Finell 19:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. BlankVerse ∅ 07:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at BlankVerse's reference, and it says that "self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages," which this is.Finell 07:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The stub templates on which you wish to add the word "Wikipedia" are not talk pages. --TheParanoidOne 11:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining BlankVerse's point, which I indeed missed. To that, I reply that the guideline against self-references itself acknowledges, under 3 separate headings, that stub messages and some other templates will appropriately refer to Wikipedia. The guideline thus recognizes that a reference to Wikipedia in a message is not the problem that such a reference would be in the body of an article.

A single user, Ec5618, deleted "Wikipedia" from the generic stub template on 3/3/2005, despite the fact that "help Wikipedia" was and still is prescribed in the official (or at least about as official as anything here gets) guideline page for stub messages, and apparently without community discussion before doing so, although it was discussed here afterward. Most of the newer categorized stub templates that I have seen, although I have not done a sytematic survey, say "help Wikipedia," in accordance with the guideline.

Please forgive me for belaboring this. For the record, I do not regard this as one of the most inportant issues facing the world, or even Wikipedia. Finell 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Undeprecate the generic stub template

While I commend the efforts and results of the stub sorting project, the project is not finished, so there are many stubs that cannot yet be categorized. Once the project is finished, there will still be new stubs created that do not fit an existing category. Therefore, there is now and will continue to be a need for the humble generic stub template. That being so, the text of the stub template should not, in my opinion, include the deprecation message, as it now does. I have not mastered the Wiki markup language, but perhaps there is a way of displaying a comment on the template page that recommends trying to find a categorized stub template before resorting to this one, but without including the deprecation message in the template's displayed text. Finell 06:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree: The stub categories are very helpful, and while at least many editors decide to mark an article with {stub} at all helps control the stubs, it does not help editors looking to expand articles any. More heirarchy in the stub categories may be a better way of initial sorting as well. Xaosflux 20:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• I too disagree. Sure, there will always be new stubs, but editors will be unable to find stubs specific to their specialist subjects if all of the stubs are dumped into one category. You seem to forget that the whole reason for the stub sorting was that there were over 15000 generic stubs (the number is now immensely higher, due to the growth of Wikipedia). The overwhelming majority of stubs fit somewhere into the stub type hierarchy, and if there are enough of a particular type that don't, then new categories can always be made.. Also, Wikipedia's servers would struggle to cope with the enormity (both meanings) of all the stubs being in one category. As to Xaosflux's comment about more hierarchy being needed, that is the aim of WP:WSS, but it is greatly hampered by sreation of stub categories by people outside the project who aren't aware that there is a hierarchy (which is one of the reasons why WP:SFD is so busy!) Grutness...wha? 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of includeonly

Why is that necessary? Seems useless to me. We don't explain other wiki markup; why this? — Dan | Talk 14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Because it only helps if we document what it did, it saves the random editor one click (on "edit") to find out that a category is included with the template. How is this possibly an issue worth writing about? :) --Joy [shallot] 19:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, it would be far simpler not to have the includeonly. That way looking at the template would be less messy, since it would just say "Category:Stubs" instead of an explanation three times that length. Includeonly is deliberately not used on other stub templates, so why is it on this one? Grutness...wha? 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

interwiki

Is it possible to add, between the <noinclude> and the </noinclude> tags, the following text:

[[es:Plantilla:Esbozo]]

? If yes, thanks in advance. --84.42.146.44 18:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, why not add all the interwiki-links in the Template:Template interwiki at the top as well? The template Template interwiki is supposed to be obsolete, but until the template is locked, then this is the only way of pointing out the template in other language Wikipedias. Ae-a 22:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Making this template more useful

I and a couple other users (User:Sannse and User:Banes) were just discussing the problems that come with the millions of stub templates. Importantly, one article is often covered by several templates (Bill Whelan) which is certainly not too aesthetically appealing.

Would it not be possible to use optional parameters in this template to give it more purpose? Eventually it would be possible to replace the templates on Bill Whelan with {{stub|Irish biographical|composer|keyboardist}} producing:

This article on an Irish person, composer and keyboardist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

The article would be appropriately placed into the three stub categories also. Anyone got any thoughts on this? I am not suggesting we should ban the myriad other templates that are available, I am just tryingto make this particular one more useful - giving users another option. It would save time trying to find the right template, at least. --Oldak Quill 11:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Every three or four months or so this suggestion comes up. Every three or four months it's resoundingly rejected, and for very good reasons. It would turn {{stub}} into a metatemplate. Metatemplates put a lot of strain on Wikipedia's servers, and any template that's used on more than a couple of thousand articles is likely to slow the system down considerably. There are currently somewhere in the vicinity of 90,000 stubs. Using a metatemplate on that many articles would cause the servers to go into terminal hyper-wibble. What's more, using a metatemplate in the way you (and several others before you) suggest would encourage people to enter any terms they liked into the template, thereby creating a never-ending stream of new stub variants, each (presumably) linked to a new stub category. One of the most important jobs of the stub sorting WikiProject is to try to make the stub categories work together as logically as possible, and to keep them all at sizes useful for editors, so that there aren't an infinite number of minorly-nuanced categories each containing just one stub. Sorry, but the idea has always been a very bad one in the past, and continues to be a very bad one now. As for the number of templates, what's more aesthetically pleasing - a stub that remains a stub because it only has one template, or a stub that quickly becomes a bigger article because the right editors could find it? Grutness...wha? 13:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Stub design

I have a proposal on new stub-templates. These consists not only of a text line, instead uses a big colored signboard. These is more visuable, and may not be mixed together with the text, which our current version does. (the design is inspired of swedish Wikipedia's old stub-version). This message is interpreted text and is because not entirely correct spelled.

My proposal:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Looks this good? --Off! 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well yes it does, but no, it doesn't :). Stub templates are deliberately kept box-free, since they are not intended to draw the eye of the reader - the suggestion to add a box comes up occasionally, but is usually turned down (have a look at #Maybe put a box around it?? above, for instance). It should be patently obvious to anyone seeing an article that it is of stub size, so no fancy labelling is needed - in fact, the less visible it is the better (although it should still be visible enough to give a link to details of how to expand it). Stub templates aren't there for the readers of the articles, they're there to help editors by categorisation. In any case, since there are about 1200 different varieties of stub template, it would be a huge job changing them all from their current standard design - not to mention the fact that changing so many heavily-used templates over would cause the servers to grind. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [zh:Template:stub] in it.百家姓之四 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --TheParanoidOne 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remove [[de:Vorlage:Stub]] --Igge 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --TheParanoidOne 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add interwiki links to he: and yi: Redaktor 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to supply the links first. --TheParanoidOne 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong "stubs"

Some article that bear the "stub" template are very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very long.

What would be the most efficient systematic way to find those. How long is the longest article thus (mis)identified as a stub? Michael Hardy 02:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Set the stub length thing in your preferences to something high and go though the categories looking for blue links? Joe D (t) 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Sơ khai]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --TheParanoidOne 09:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

vi:Tiêu bản:Sơ khai

--Jay Turner 18:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

stub stub...

Why does both "help" and "stub" refer to Wikipedia:Stub? _→AzaToth 02:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Historically they pointed to different pages. I've removed the link from "help". --TheParanoidOne 09:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming "stubs" to "Ready references".

When I was a small child I read a 7 part finnish encyclopaedia numerous times through from cover to cover (Combi). 1 part was (with very few exceptions) what we would call stubs; the six other volumes consisting of fuller illustrated articles. The Micropaedia portion of Encyclopedia Britannica, is one half stubs (or substubs), and one half very short articles, by our standards. But they don't call them stubs, they call the books Micropaedia - Ready Reference and Index.

Wikipedia has treasured its informality, and will rightly continue to treasure it. And further, there was a time when it was essential to be very humble about the way we spoke about ourselves, to deflect criticisms of hubris. This part of our informal nature no longer has a reasonable basis. While we clearly are not yet winning our friendly competition to be the largest, the most comprehensive, the most reliable compendius information source of distilled verifiable information that collects human knowledge into a readable form; we are at least realistically struggling toward that aim on a credibly competitive level with the best of our rivals.

There is a real sea-change going on in the perception of wikipedia (including on one hand a decrying of the death of wikipedia as a concept). There is a gradual (and long in the waiting) shift towards emphasizing standards and quality over quantity. And even more importantly a real pride of what we are as opposed to what used to be a hopeful confidence about what we can become.

For all of the reasons enumerated above, I will seriously evaluate we are grievously selling ourselves short (ahem), by calling our briefest articles with the denigrating term "stub". This would be a powerful expression of our raised level of self-esteem, and possibly might even reduce the opportunities for sneering comments about having such an amount of short articles. </smirk>

I am not suggesting that we should stop calling them stubs in our internal deliberations. That would be stupid, and totally against any reasonable evaluation of human nature. We should even keep the name of the tag {stub}. What I am suggesting, is that we change the text displayed to casual readers of our content, to reflect that we are not genuinely ashamed of brief articles. Not only should the term "stub" be removed, but the whole template should lose the imperative mode, and claim that expansion will happen in the future tense. To me the question of what should replace the term "stub" is largely irrelevant, but I could see "ready reference article", "brief article", "information in brief" for instance as being hugely preferable. Do please give the matter serious and thoughtful consideration before rejecting it out of hand, thank you. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that as a rule we should exclude jargon from articles as much as possible, especially the stub and disambiguation templates. It confuses readers who don't speak our jargon, and their informal tone conveys a sort of amateurish flavor. For stub, maybe something like "new article" or "unfinished article" to convey the sense that we're still working on it? I'm interested to discover that there are paper encyclopedias out there with sections for "stubs" in them. Deco 04:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Our stubs tend to vary in quality rather more than those in paper encyclopedias, unfortunately. "Stub" (or at least stub tag templates) can be applied to anything from a tightly-written paragraph-long brief overview to a horrid, unreadable, borderline-nonsense something that Britannica wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You give Britannica much credit. I dare say you think you have a fair grasp of what their overall level is. I suggest however a small experiment. Go and pick one of their Micropaedia volumes at random. Open three pagespreads at random, finding the very tiniest "article" from each, and counting the words. Then come back here and of those three, quote the tiniest here. I cast iron guarantee you won't have much to type ;D -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 10:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Entire Wikipedia articles correspond to Britannica Micropaedia articles. Main Britannica articles are much longer than most Wikipedia articles. The article on the Bible in the Britannica 11th edition is about one megabyte of text, and the current Britannica has articles longer than that.

Furthermore, the whole point of a stub is to indicate that nothing more than an indication of an article that needs to be written and a sketch of a starting direction. Please re-read Wikipedia:The perfect stub article. Stubs are not useful in themselves; they are only useful after they have been expanded to an article.

I take your point about there being an effort to bring Wikipedia up the quality of a traditional encyclopedia. This is precisely why stubs should continue to be called stubs. The idea that you can make something higher quality by softening the language of what is essentially a warning notice—warning that an article has just been started, needs work, has probably not received much review, etc.—is bizarre to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, many Britannica articles are longer than ours because our information is spread between sub-articles (like in case of the Bible). Ausir 15:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about "softening" the language. It's about expressing the same idea in language that readers can actually understand. To most people, a stub is either part of a ticket or something you do to your toe. We should explicitly express the idea that the article is incomplete and we're still working on it. Deco 17:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this (I think "unfinished article" is the best term, although of course that applies to all Wikipedia content to a degree). My mother once had a conversation with me along the lines of: "I looked up X in Wikipedia, and it had some kind of notice saying it was a 'stub'. What's that?" "Well, it's a very short article, that doesn't contain much content. It's Wikipedia jargon." "Well, why don't they use normal English instead of making up their own stupid words?"

We're familiar with the term stub. We should not allow that familiarity to cloud the fact that outsiders are not familiar with our terminology. We should be as accessible as possible, and making up our own words isn't helping. (Disambiguation is an actual word, incidentally, and fairly easy to understand from its components, but perhaps a more obvious term could be found for that too.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the point - and I would have no objection to the wording of stub templates being changed to indicate "this article is a stub - i.e., it is incomplete. Blah blah blah..." I don't see any reason why the template and category names should be changed though. It should be noted thought that stub articles are not "ready reference" articles, in that ready references in encyclopedias are summaries of complete articles mentioning all the important information from the full articles - stubs are articles with important information missing. Also, because of the way Wikipedia works, it is virtually impossible for an article to be truly complete. It is the peculiar nature of Wikipedia which means that there is really no exact synonym for "stub" in the non-Wiki world. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I word support a change in the wording per Grutness– not out of a probably unwarranted sense of "pride", but out of motivation toward reducing jargon to our lay readers. What about something like, "This article is short and undeveloped. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."--Pharos 05:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent. Terse yet accurate. Converting all the templates will be an ordeal though, once we agree on a term. Deco 06:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of very important points are worth mentioning here - first, if there is to be wholesale change it should be done very carefully. many of these templates are used by vast numbers of articles, and as such changes to them can cause a great deal of distress to the servers (which is why a lot of them are protected). Second, no change should occur without getting input from the people who deal with stubs the most, WP:WSS, since a LOT of work has gone into maintaining the stub templates and trying to keep them as uniform as possible. Any wholesale changes that are made to stub templates without discussion there are likely to be swiftly reverted. As such, I've noted this discussion on the WP:WSS talk page and would ask that any moves to change the templates should be held off until after there has been input from some of the other regular stub-sorters. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happens *please* don't change the names of the actual templates and categories. Such a move would require edits to 300,000 - 400,000 articles and this would cause so much strain on the system, that it could be belly-up for days. And it would take I-don't-know-how-much-time to actually implement it. The wording of the stub templates is sometimes too cumbersome, so rewording them is worth a consideration. I'll second Grutness that in this case, we need to be absolutely sure before any changes are done, in order to minimize the strain on the servers, and to keep a consistent look between the templates. I was thinking about something like: "This article about ... is very short and needs further expansion." (Just my 2 cents anyway). I'm still somewhat afraid WP:WSS might get a fatwa from the server people though. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel fairly neutral about the "jargon" aspect; Pharos's suggestion seems fairly sensible, but as the text is linked to a defining document in either case, I doubt it makes much difference. It would make the text longer though, something we already gets gripes about in some cases. The original premise of changing it for "PR reasons" I'd be strongly opposed to; to tag stubs as "Micropaedia articles", and therefore brief by design would be a wholesole misresepresentation. The idea of changing the text to some bland passive-voice statement that the article "will be expanded", from its present active encouragement to expand it would also a step backward: rather than trying to bluster for the benefit of "casual readers", we should continue to go out of our way to encourage them to become more than that. Alai 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it only makes no difference to folks who click through to Wikipedia policy pages, which the vast majority of our lay readers just don't do. The stub notice will not necessarily be longer in any case, as the second sentence, "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it", can be shortened in any number of ways, and indeed was largely written so that "help" could originally link to Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub, which now just redirects to Wikipedia:Stub.--Pharos 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Pharos' suggestion a lot. As for server load, since this is one-time, it's a very minor concern; it will probably cause a slight hiccup when you edit the really heavily-used templates like {{stub}}, but nothing to be worried about. An old notice on {{qif}} said it caused database lock of just a few seconds, and I'm pretty sure that was used massively more than {{stub}} (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pages; I don't know about this). Server load for template changes is generally overstated. Current Chief Technical Officer Brion Vibber (who now was and is in charge of "maintain[sing] overall responsibility for all technical functions of the Foundation, including both hardware and software", although the post didn't exist at the time) has said: "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal implied edits to all stub templates, remember? This means that all articles using stub templates (and WP:WSS estimates that number to be around 400,000) will have to be regenerated on the servers, and it will pose a very great load on them. Most articles use more than 1 template, so they might have to be regenerated several times. WP:WSS has in the past received a few friendly messages emphasizing that the server guys are against massive edits to the templates, and it is a very real problem. It would be incredibly nice to have more servers, but the average response time seems to suggest that the servers are pretty busy. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is particularly worth noting in this regard. Note how many of the listed templates are stub templates. Grutness...wha? 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

High-use templates are protected to prevent vandalism from hitting 10,000 pages at once. Some people also think they should be protected on the rationale of server load; these people are either working with information that I, personally, do not have, which is possible, or else their rationale is erroneous. But no matter whom you ask, when it comes to high-use templates, thoughtful changes are certainly permitted if they're discussed first and agreed upon. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you place too much emphasis on the technical aspect of this change. For one thing, nothing is going to be "regenerated multiple times" - that's not how it works. Also, the impact is not immediate, but only felt when each of the pages is next viewed, which spreads it out over a long period of time. Finally, only 34 stub templates are listed in the "high use" category, and these could be gradually modified with sufficient time in-between. Also, according to traffic statistics 95% of our traffic hits a small percentage of our articles; these will be re-cached quickly, and once those are recached the cache will be just about as good as ever. Deco 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a quote from a developer (in fact, the specific developer who's in charge of this) that explicitly states we shouldn't worry about server load when it comes to policy decisions. Unless you can come up with a quote from Brion that indicates that this specific case is an exception to his stated general rule, I would suggest that you not try to contradict the Wikimedia Foundation's Chief Technical Officer on matters pertaining to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers.

As for the devs telling you to do anything, I see this (developer Jamesday says meta-templates should be dropped, saying nothing about isolated changes to the template, and this well over a year ago; Brion explicitly countermands him about a year later), this and this and this (Jamesday says categories should be dropped or cut down upon, saying nothing about isolated changes to the template, and this almost a year and a half ago; nobody seemingly asked other devs, but Brion later ended up countermanding similar statements of James), and this (Jamesday says images should be dropped, saying nothing about isolated changes to the templates; Brion explicitly countermands him shortly thereafter). In other words: none of these changes had anything to do with what we're discussing, namely isolated changes to the templates; all of them came from the same developer; and that developer was overruled by the one explicitly given responsibility for Wikimedia server performance. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents: "Ready reference" tells me nothing and has the unwanted connotation that the article's "ready" and finished, when in fact it isn't finished at all and needs to be expanded. I'm willing to guess that a large portion of Wikipedia's users also have no idea what a "ready reference" is. Crystallina 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure very few people on the Continent understand that term. I for one don't. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Ready reference" is jargon as "stub" is. I'm not convinced that making such a cosmetic change will produce any benefit, aside from causing confusion within the editing community, as the stub terminology is pretty thoroughly established. With the propsed change there'll then be newbies coming along talking about ready references (bleh). OK, so someone now might not know what is meant by "stub"--well, like most anything else on Wikipedia (and indeed the entire Internet) they can click a link and find out all they might want to know about stubs on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the discussion, as the conversation has evolved considerably beyond the "ready reference" stage, and rather divergent proposals have been made. We are in fact working toward a real de-jargonization, which is desperately needed as very few of our lay readers are jumping to click into Wikipedia policy pages. Remember to appreciate this from the perspective of an "outsider". Thanks.--Pharos 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stub is easier then Ready references.

--Jay Turner 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Extra line break

This template appears to have a spurious extra line break the bottom. Which is not consistent with the other stub templates, so the layout gets mucked up a bit when a stub is sorted. Can someone please remove the line break? Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Which template is it? Valentinian ^(talk) 09:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stub GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

tag type, id vs. class, and style info

While we're considering changing all stubs (see #Renaming "stubs" to "Ready references".):

1. Using the semantically-void <div> is unnecessary here. Use <p>, since that's what it is.
2. id="stub" needs to be changed; it has to be a class, not an id, because some pages have more than one stub template and it's illegal (as well as pointless) to duplicate ids.
3. The italics don't have to be manually added. Add them via the stylesheet.

So the content part of the template should become

<p class="notice metadata stub">This article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]</span>.</p>

Then the line

.stub { font-style: italics; }

should be added to Mediawiki:Common.css. Similar changes, of course, must be made to all stub templates. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

SITENAME

This template can be made more universal by using {{SITENAME}} instead of hardcoding "Wikipedia", e.g.

''This article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by ..

becomes

''This article is a [[{{ns:Project}}:Stub|stub]]. You can help {{SITENAME}} by ..

Pimlottc 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost any template could become more universal by adding variables, conditionals, etc. But that just makes the code harder to read and maintain. Stubs are inherently self-references anyway, so it's likely that any redistributor (other than proper forks, which are of negligible number) will want to remove them, and even if they happen not to (most likely out of ignorance or apathy), they would have to be running their mirror on MediaWiki anyway to get any benefit, which most mirrors aren't (they typically use static HTML of some type). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki (el)

Please add el:Πρότυπο:Επέκταση in the interwiki section. --Anastasios 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, it might be an idea to sort the interwiki links alphabetically. The list is somewhat messy at the moment. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. --TheParanoidOne 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki (ar)

Hi. Can someone add the Arabic interwiki? Just in case, here it is: ar:قالب:بذرة -- Qasamaan 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Added. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Can someone help create the Stub for yo.wikipedia.org? -- Qasamaan 09:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you after? Someone to create a stub template, or ...? --TheParanoidOne 20:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Corresponding article in Lojban

The transwiki link to Lojban page could be added to the page (jbo:Template:na_mulno). I guess some other "stub" links are missing, too. --82.139.47.118 10:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

jbo:Template:na_mulno added. --TheParanoidOne 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please add transwiki link to BG too

bg:Шаблон:Мъниче Thanks.--Петър Петров 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --TheParanoidOne 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason

That this template is uncategorised? --–Xoid 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is the Holy Mother of All Stub Templates so wouldn't it be disrespectful to group it with something else? :) Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But it's feeling all lonely! :P --–Xoid 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Standing on the top of the world can be cold. But the view is great. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. In fact, we are currently debating as to create a Category:Stub templates. If you think it is a good idea, please come and take part in the debate. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 00:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange that no-one has seen fit to inform Wikiproject Stub sorting about that debate. We might have a thing or two to say, especially since the idea of a category for stub templates has been debated there and rejected in the past... Grutness...wha? 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer the original question, yes there is a reason. Stub templates usually are only categorised into their linked categories. Since the aim of this particular category is for it to be completely empty, however, it made sense to noinclude its category. This is dealt with somewhere in the archives of either this template or the Category:Stubs. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia evolves and things debated in the past can be brought back. Espacially when the decision was taken only by 3 users. I really fail to see the problem caused by having a Stub template category. I know there are thousands of stubs. But there can't possibly be thousands of stub templates... Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We are already rather few people having to do a big workload simply maintaining WP:WSS/ST which lists all approved stub templates (i.e. probably more than 98% of those around) as well as the corresponding categories, the number of affected articles and the stub template "tree". We also have Category:Stub categories which contains all these categories. WP:WSS generally tries to maintain simple and "lean" templates, and adding a lot of extra "filling" increases the risks of errors with these high-use templates. No doubt many editors would chose to only add either the category to a new template or just add the template / category to WP:WSS/ST but not add this category to the actual template. With all the work still left on WP:WSS our time can be spent much better than simply trying to keep two systems running alongside each other. We currently have one functioning system, so let's stick to this rather than try to hunt two hares at the same time. This was also the reason this proposal was rejected the other times it has been mentioned. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please copy and paste this new list of interwiki links. It adds af: az: be: cs: ko: la: lb: li: sr: fi: tl: uk: ur: vec:, updates bs: ca: ga: hr: id: ia: it: ku: lv: lt: hu: mi: ms: nn: oc: ru: sl: su: sv: tt: wa: and sorts the whole list according to english standards.

<!-- interwiki -->
[[af:Sjabloon:Saadjie]]
[[als:Vorlage:Stumpen]]
[[ang:Template:Stycce]]
[[ar:قالب:بذرة]]
[[az:Şablon:Qaralama]]
[[be-x-old:Шаблён:Накід]]
[[bs:Šablon:U začetku]]
[[bg:Шаблон:Мъниче]]
[[ca:Plantilla:Esborrany]]
[[cs:Šablona:Pahýl]]
[[cy:Nodyn:Eginyn]]
[[da:Skabelon:Stub]]
[[el:Πρότυπο:Επέκταση]]
[[es:Plantilla:Esbozo]]
[[eo:Ŝablono:Ĝermo]]
[[eu:Template:Zirriborroa]]
[[fr:Modèle:Ébauche]]
[[ga:Teimpléad:Stumpa]]
[[gd:Template:Bun]]
[[gl:Template:En progreso]]
[[ko:틀:토막글]]
[[ha:Template:Stub]]
[[hsb:Předłoha:Stub]]
[[hr:Predložak:Mrva]]
[[id:Templat:Stub]]
[[ia:Patrono:Pecietta]]
[[is:Snið:Stubbur]]
[[it:Template:S]]
[[ku:Şablon:Kurt]]
[[la:Formula:Stipula]]
[[lv:Veidne:Stub]]
[[lb:Template:Skizz]]
[[lt:Šablonas:Stub]]
[[li:Sjabloon:Sjtumpke]]
[[jv:Cithakan:Stub]]
[[jbo:Template:na mulno]]
[[hu:Sablon:Csonk]]
[[mk:Шаблон:Никулец]]
[[mi:Template:Maramara]]
[[ms:Templat:Stub]]
[[nl:Sjabloon:Beg]]
[[no:Mal:Stubb]]
[[nn:Mal:Spire]]
[[oc:Modèl:Esbòs]]
[[pl:Szablon:Stub]]
[[pt:Predefinição:Esboço]]
[[ksh:Schablon:Stub]]
[[ro:Format:Ciot]]
[[ru:Шаблон:Заготовка]]
[[scn:Template:Stub]]
[[simple:Template:Stub]]
[[sk:Šablóna:Výhonok]]
[[sl:Predloga:Stub]]
[[sr:Шаблон:Клица]]
[[sh:Template:U začetku]]
[[su:Citakan:Pondok]]
[[fi:Malline:Tynkä]]
[[sv:Mall:Stub]]
[[tl:Template:Stub]]
[[tt:Ürnäk:Töpçek]]
[[th:แม่แบบ:โครง]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Sơ khai]]
[[tr:Şablon:Taslak]]
[[uk:Шаблон:Доробити]]
[[ur:سانچہ:نامکمل]]
[[vec:Template:Stub]]
[[wa:Modele:Djermon]]
[[zh:Template:Stub]]
[[zh-yue:Template:楔]]

I could have written down only the changes, but it was much faster for me as it will be for you just to copy and paste the whole list. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 09:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As the admin who made the edit, I thank you for that decision. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An update has been made to the above list. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another update has been made. By the way, why hasn't this template been given a /doc page such as with Template:En icon? It would make the interwiki updates much easier, wouldn't it? Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 03:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add th interwiki

Please add th:แม่แบบ:โครง into the list of interwiki languages. Thanks --Jutiphan 22:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub - category

I think that the stub should have an optional param so that you format it like {{stub|cat}} that way we do not have to create a new template for each category. Sample at {{stubc}} Comperr 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But that puts everything into Category:Stubs, whereas it's much better to sort stubs into smaller, more meaningful categories. --Stemonitis 08:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would mean one template on 400,000 pages. Which would cause so much strain on the servers that we probably wouldn't have a working Wikipedia any more. Not to mention the problem with slight variants on piping used meaning that virtaully identical parallel stub types would start cropping up everywhere. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The second part woulld certainly be an issue. Server load can safely be ignored, however; we already have several templates with well over half a million transclusions ({{tl}} springs to mind) – Gurch 17:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New draft of WP:STUB

After concerns raised at WP talk:Stub about the complexity of WP:STUB, I have written a rough draft to shorten it. The new draft contains the same information, but is 25% shorter. It also removes some of the information on how to create stub templates - information which is in part responsible for the large number of "discoveries" and is also responsible (due to the misreading by some editors) of the need to trawl the non-existent Category:B stubs for stubs "about A". Please feel free to make any comments, positive or negative on my new draft (User:Grutness/WP Stub rewrite (draft) at its talk page. (crossposted to WP talk:Stub and WP talk:WSS) Grutness...wha? 00:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

proposals for an image

example:

....

Hmm. I somewhat like the puzzle piece, myself. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I like the puzzle piece as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit proposal

{{editprotected}}

Can someone change this for me since it is protected?

The current template reads:

---

<div class="notice metadata" id="stub">''This article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]. ''</div><includeonly>[[Category:Stubs]]</includeonly>

---

I wanted to change it to:

---

<div class="notice metadata" id="stub">''This article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]</span>.''</div><includeonly>[[Category:Stubs]]</includeonly>

---

The only thing it would do is make the text expanding it appear as a plain link rather than an external link. — The Future 04:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done (using different coding to simplify the HTML the template expands into). --ais523 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

invite only non-infringing material

Hello. I suggest that the stub template assert that contributions must be GFDL licensed; perhaps something like

thank you for considering this. Crimethinker 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit screen already says Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted., it's not clear what adding this would accomplish. It might make sense to move that to above the submit button, or even above the edit summary. --Random832 00:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Crimethinker, but we also have to consider that some editors resent even having the stub templates at all, and these templates would only become more dominating if we include large chuncks of text. This problem is in turn increased when some articles use more than one stub template. The GFDL reminder really applies to all articles, not only stub articles. Just my 2 cents. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many editors actually read the GFDL, even though it is mentioned both above and below the Save page button. Adding it to stub template will not achieve much. Rather the reader and to-be-editor will wander off reading what GFDL means :). -- Myth (Talk) 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes for flexibility

{{editprotected}}

I propose that a few parameters be added to this template to allow for standardization of the stub templates. Rather than having haphazard styling of stub templates, each stub template would just be a reference to Template:Stub. For example, the contents of {{australia-bcast-stub}} could become:

{{stub
|id=[[Image:Wireless tower.svg|30px]]
|kindofarticle=article related to [[broadcasting]] in [[Australia]]
|category=Australia broadcasting stubs
}}

This would produce:

Even so, {{stub}} would still display a generic stub notice:

Changing to this templated system would allow for easily creating and modifying stub types and ensuring consistent styling among all stub templates. For example, it would make sure that the "expanding it" link is a plain link (in other words, does not display the external link symbol).

The new template code would be like this:

{| class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub" style="background-color:transparent"
| style="padding-right:0.5em; {{{idstyle|}}}" | {{{id|[[Image:Wiki letter w.svg|30px]]}}} || ''This {{{kindofarticle|article}}} is a [[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]].  You can [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|help]] Wikipedia by <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]</span>''.
|}

[[Category:{{{category|Stubs}}}]]<noinclude>
{{/doc}}</noinclude>

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Very strong oppose. This issue has been debated many times before on WP:WSS and the opinion is overwhelmingly against adding parameters to the stub templates. It will mess up the current stub sorting system completely. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to where exactly this has been debated before? Also, how will this mess up the current stub sorting system? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Very strong oppose. If you look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals you'll find similar proposals coming up ten or twenty times over the years. It would render the current stub-sorting system completely unworkable, since it would lead to anyone being able to name a stub type anything they want. That may not sound a problem, but it is on several counts:

1. Stub categories work in a different way to permanent categories, which can be of any size from one article to thousands.In order for stub types to work successfully, they have to be useful to editors of articles. As such, it is necessary for there to be a certain number of stubs in a category for it to be viable. WP:WSS uses approximate limits of 60-800 stubs for a category to be worthwhile. Above that, and it is split into smaller subtypes; below that, and it is deemed to small to be of any use. This is one of the main reasons why there is a stub proposal process. Consider it from an editor's point of view. You want to find a stub to expand on a specific topic. You wouldn't want to have to wade through a more coarsely-grained category with several thousand stubs, but you'd also find it annoying and discouraging to flip between half a dozen very finely-grained categories each containing only two or three stubs.
2. In order for stub sorters to be able to sort stubs successfully, they need to know what categories there are. For this reason, specific naming guidelines have been put in place so that all stub types have uniform names. Being able to add any name as a stub category, as this template would allow, defeats that utterly.
3. As an extension of the above, this would lead to parallel categories I for one do not want to have to clean up the potential problem of Category:United States people stubs, Category:United States bio stubs, Category:United States biography stubs, Category:United States biographical stubs, Category:US people stubs, Category:US bio stubs, Category:US biography stubs, Category:US biographical stubs, Category:U.S. people stubs, Category:U.S. bio stubs, Category:U.S. biography stubs, Category:U.S. biographical stubs, Category:American people stubs, Category:American bio stubs, Category:American biography stubs, and Category:American biographical stubs. This sort of problem would occur very very swiftly if anyone could enter any category name they wished rather than using one set template with a category link already in place.
4. One of the most useful tools in stub-sorting is the "What links here" page of the template. With one uniform metatemplate it would be impossible to use that tool.

Over and above this, it is generally not recommended that a template be used on more than a couple of thousand articles, due to potential problems with the overloading of Wikipedia's servers. This proposal would result in one metatemplate being used on hundreds of thousands of articles. It would make it impossible to make any changes to the template without the risk jeopardising Wikipedia existence. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a general principle that we ignore performance issues. On one hand, having one template on hundreds of thousands of articles would not be such a problem - the biography wikiproject template is on that many. On the other hand, if we ever did do something that had an effect on the servers, the developers would take care of it, because that's their job. All that matters here is whether it's better for the encyclopedia to have one stub template or many. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, based on the above comments, that my proposal has been misinterpreted. I'm not talking about abolishing the specific templates such as {{australia-bcast-stub}}. I'm just saying that the contents of those templates would be parameterized references to this template. This would keep formatting consistent across all the stub templates. Just as stub templates should never be subst'd, this template would only be used through another template, in order to keep categorization consistent.

For example, the contents of {{australia-bcast-stub}} would become:

{{stub
|id=[[Image:Wireless tower.svg|30px]]
|kindofarticle=article related to [[broadcasting]] in [[Australia]]
|category=Australia broadcasting stubs
}}

No one would use the above code directly. It would always be through {{australia-bcast-stub}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would feel very uneasy if all 400,000+ stub articles were somehow connected to the same master template. If somebody at a later time modifies this master template ({{Stub}}) this would mean that all these 400,000+ pages would have to be generated afresh. If this happens a year from now, this figure will be even higher; 600,000 articles? Such a strain on the servers would probably get WP:WSS shut down for good, since it would probably imply that Wikipedia went offline for several hours. If such an experiment was attempted, it would not only mean that c. 1,000 stub templates would have to be recoded (= a colossal amount of work with little benefit) it would also imply that the new master/meta template would have to be tagged with a "This template may never be edited under any circumstances. Yes, this also applies to admins, bureaucrats, stewards, Jimbo and everybody else". The risk involved in such a proposal is very great and so is the work required while the benefit is comparatively small. Besides, there will be no guarantee that people will stop using the old template code for the 1,000+ stub templates, so there is no guarantee that the individual templates / template calls would retain a consistent look. Valentinian ^{T / C} 09:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, I don't think that we really have to worry about this change bringing the servers to a grinding halt. If it causes a problem, the developers will tweak the software to compensate. This solution seems to me to be better than going through each of the 1000 stub types and adding plainlinks code to keep the formatting consistent.

Also, come to think of it, it might be better to use a different template than {{stub}} as the "master" template. We could adapt {{metastub}} to this purpose, for example. This would work better because it would be easy to check "What links here" and make sure that the master template is not being used directly. We couldn't do that with {{stub}} because that template is meant to be used directly. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please wait until there is consensus before adding editprotected tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Women's Menstral Cycle

Monthly Period

   Pre-MS
     Symptoms
        Cycle
           Post-MS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.221.219 (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 

Um... thanks for contributing to Wikipedia? Terraxos (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Just a note, stub type proposals go on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals. --98.114.243.75 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well

{{editprotected}} Add an Image. Preview:

 Not done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) This has been discussed before Template_talk:Stub#Image, and a solid consensus is needed to make the change. This template is HEAVILY transcluded. Discussion is welcome as always. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BL Rochester - Author of Children's Literature

BL Rochester, AKA Brian L. Rochester, is the author of The Joey Jenkins Mysteries. The Joey Jenkins Mystery Series is a series of childrens books for school aged boys, ranging from 9 - 12 years old.

"The Mystery at Camp Davis" 2004 - ISBN: 1-4137-7528-4

As school is nearing the end, Joey Jenkins and his friends are getting ready for a return visit to summer camp at Camp Davis. But, the gang meets a new camper this year, and Mr. Davis's prize winning Calico Goat named Billy Bear is missing. With the help of an expert animal tracker named Tommy Clearwater, will the bunch be able to find Billy Bear in time for the county fair? Will they find out how he disappeared? Read along as Joey and friends investigate “The Mystery at Camp Davis”.

"Something is Missing at Redding Lake" 2005 - ISBN: 1-4241-0065-8

Grandma and Grandpa’s house has a secret. It also has a really tall tale. For Joey Jenkins, Thanksgiving Vacation means that he’s in the middle of another mystery. Will he find out what’s kept Grandpa searching for so long? Will Brooke convince Aunt Lauren of the truth? And, will Thomas finally face that bully? Come along and discover what’s missing at Redding Lake, as Joey and family solve another Joey Jenkins Mystery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.208.239 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely this would be better addressed on the article's talk page than here? This isn't exactly anything to do with the stub template... Grutness...wha? 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link to ja:

{{editprotected}}

Please add an interwiki link to the Japanese version of this template: [[ja:Template:Stub]]

Thanks. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Gimmetrow 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of stub templates

Out of interest, is there any reason stub templates look the way they do and appear at the bottom of the article rather than other templates like Template:Wikify? I'm not proposing anything, just wondering if there's been any discussion on this. For example, see User:Alex.muller/draft. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just read through this whole page... "Stub templates are deliberately kept box-free," — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, both the style and location of stub templates has been discussed in the past, and they are both as they are for good reasons. As far as the box is concerned, a stub template is meant to be unobtrusive (it should be obvious to the reader that an article is a stub). Similarly with the location - we don't want the template to get in the way of reading the article, since it's a note to an editor rather than a reader. In many ways, it would make some sense if other editor-related templates (e.g., {{wikify}}) wewre put at the bottom, too, leaving only content related ones like {{hoax}} at the top, but stub templates c ertainly should go at the bottom of the articles. Grutness...wha? 23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorize?

I notice this template isn't categorized. Shouldn't it be?--Kotniski (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No - stub templates aren't categorised. Read #Any particular reason, further up this page for a partial explanation. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see... But some other stub templates are apparently categorised, into the corresponding category of stub articles. Why couldn't this one be placed in Category:Stubs by analogy?--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion notice

I'll take this opportunity to draw stub boffs' attention to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Stub category policy concerning the possible hiding of stub categories. I will also have a related proposal to include a link to the stub category in the stub notice (template) itself, but I'm not sure what's the best place to bring it up (here? project page?)--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well to be precise, the proposal is to move towards stub messages which look like this (subst'ed from User:Kotniski/metastub):

This would make the category more obviously accessible, while allowing it to be harmlessly hidden (from the Categories box) as proposed in the above-mentioned discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it could work for doubly-upmerged templates, of which there are thousands. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I guess it could still be done, something like this:

The categories would still appear normally in the template code, of course, and anyone wishing to see them displayed in the categories section of articles as they are now need only select "show hidden categories" under "my preferences". --Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...that might work. I'd like to see more input from some stubsorters who know molre about coding than I do, though (I'm pretty much an "end-user" when it comes to this sortb of thing). Grutness...wha? 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki (de)

Please add de:Vorlage:Lückenhaft. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 09:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Stub categories

A noinclude link to Category:Stub categories may be a good idea. 78.34.128.1 (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one used to exist for Category:Stubs, but was removed since Category:Stub categories is really for stubs that have been subcategorised. I can't see any reason why {{stub}} should have such a link, though, especially since Category:Stubs has a "fixed" blue link to that category anyway. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge All

I know it's a big project, I've done similar sized mergers myself, but why not merge all the varieties of stubs into one template? It would make it much more convenient for editors, and I even thought out the code! It might go a little something like this:

{{#SWITCH: {{{1|{{{category|}}})))
|#default=''This{{#ifeq: {{{1{{{category|}}})))||| [[{{{1{{{category}}})))]]-related}} article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]. ''</div>[[Category:{{#ifeq: {{{1{{{category|}}})))|||{{{1{{{category}}}))) }}Stubs]]<br>
|1900s novel={{1900s novel stubs}}<br>
|1910s novel={{1910s novel stubs}}<br>
|1920s comedy film={{1920s comedy film stubs}}<br>
|1920s novel={{1920s novel stubs}}<br>
<br>
...<br>
<br>
|Zosteropidae={{Zosteropidae stubs}}<br>
|Ząbkowice Śląskie County geography={{Ząbkowice Śląskie County geography stubs}}<br>
}}

All it will take is the copy-pasting of |={{}}5584 times and then copy-pasting the names, and this way, all the existing stub inclusion links will still work! Again, I know it seems daunting, but that's what we did in Simpedia, and I know there is more help here!— Supuhstar * § 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it sounds like a lovely idea to have just one template, and similar suggestions have been made many times in the past (see, for instance Template_talk:Stub#Making_this_template_more_useful. But consider this: one template, transcluded onto 500,000 articles. If even the slightest change was needed to it, it would cause serious problems for Wikipedia's servers (even templates only used on 1000 or so articloes are permanently protected to reduce the likelihood of this happening). Grutness...wha? 01:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Crap... I ran into that same issue on Simpedia with my signature... Well can you still make it like this at least:

''This{{#ifeq: {{{1{{{category|}}})))||| [[{{{1{{{category}}})))]]-related}} article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]. ''</div>[[Category:{{#ifeq: {{{1{{{category|}}})))|||{{{1{{{category}}}))) }}Stubs]]

well?— Supuhstar * § 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. dunno... someone with more knowledge of coding than me would need to look at it. I can't see it saving much work over the current scheme in the long run, though. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Namespace restriction

The stub tag is only for articles, but it is often used in other namespaces (User: and now Wikipedia:). Could we add namespace detection to only include the category if the article is in the mainspace?

I believe the problem only exists for {{stub}} itself, not the more specific stub templates. I think other than the day of the stub-bot's run, the stub cat usually has less than a hundred articles, and is often empty. Hence, I don't think there is a performance problem.

I've seen two or three users (persistently) tagging userspace drafts as stubs, and now there is WP:Stub example. Hence, I do think there is some actual need.

If the idea sounds good, here is what my {{editprotected}} request would be:

Old:

<div class="notice metadata plainlinks" id="stub">''This article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]. ''</div><includeonly>[[Category:Stubs]]</includeonly>

New:

<div class="notice metadata plainlinks" id="stub">''This article is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]. ''</div><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Stubs]]}}</includeonly>

If this sounds like a good idea, I'll ask for the editprotected. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, although this sounds on the face of it like a good idea, it has a couple of distinct drawbacks. Firstly, even if the stub templates are being used outside article space we want to know, since they need to be removed from other spaces (stub templates should never appear in categories, for instance, and any that do need to be removed). As such, hiding any misplaced stub templates actually makes the job of removing them harder. Also, as you point out some stub templates (and definitely not just {{stub}}) are used by editors in the process of writing articles in their sandboxes - which is fine as far as I'm concerned. I don't see how hiding these is doing anything other than delaying the sorting of soon-to-be stubs. If there was a way of actually stopping people from using stub templates in other namespaces, I'd be far more interested! Grutness...wha? 01:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't think we can actually prevent the use of the template, but we can add a warning or otherwise make it ugly in other namespaces, much like in {{prod}}. We can make the warning different for different namespaces, so that for instance a severe warning is given in Category:, a fairly mild reminder about stub sorting in User:, the standard warning in Talk: to put it on the article not the talk page, and then a generic "Stubs are articles, not miscellaneous pages" warning in the other namespaces. Let me know if you want a sample of that kind of template. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also to be clear, it is easy to find out what pages currently use a template, Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stub, and it even has filters for namespaces. However, I certainly agree the stub sorting project would be simpler for newcomers if *all* the pages using the stub template were in the stubs category. I think practically that using the special page would be a burden, one would have to check all the pages like Talk check, Category check, etc. In other words, I agree, the category is the best way to keep track of {{stub}} usage. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• I like the idea of the warning on the template - BTW, there probably needs to be mention of this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, since many people involved in stubs are more likely to have that page on their watchlists than this one. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

Why is this missing? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the time the idea of adding /doc to all templates came along, there were already 1000 stub templates. In every single case, the usage is the same, and it's explained at WP:STUB, which is already linked in the template. It was seen as being far simpler just to leave that link as a de facto documentation. Grutness...wha? 21:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I guess I don't quite understand the reversion of my most recent edit to this template, making it so Category:Stubs would only appear on mainspace pages. The reasoning was "we need to be able to find it elsewhere so that we can remove it" - First of all, we can use the "what links here" function to do that, and second of all, I don't really see the need to remove the stub template from, say, someone's userspace subpage with a draft article. The category being on such a page is more problematic, since the category is specifically meant for mainspace pages, not user or other namespace pages, so the category becomes polluted when these other namespace pages are included. Also, is anybody going to actually regularly go through and remove these pages if the category stays? I'm doubtful about that. I think we should revert back to my version. VegaDark (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is common practice for stub-sorters to subst the stub template where it appears on a userpage, with an explanation of why it should not be used in user space, and to do this as quickly as possible (in order to prevent the person who put it there thinking that it is standard practice to do so). We even have a specific template to use to explain this ({{stubbed user}}), so yes, they are often the first pages sorted from the category. For this reason, it is important that userspace pages that are marked with the transcluded template appear in {[cl|Stubs}}. As for draft documents in user subpages, they are stub-sorted in exactly the same way as full articles in articlespace, since they will appear there before long, and again since it is often the case that editors creating them would be better off informed of any more specific stub type that can be used (this is particularly the case if they are planning to create a series of related articles, as is often the case if they have created a page outline in their userspace). Your version, though it appears on the surface to make sense, is therefore problematical for the day-to-day work done by WP:WSS. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I'm still not understanding the benefits of this. The template you link to says "I hope you don't mind that I subst'ed the stub template on your user page and removed the category link; I did this so that your page doesn't turn up in a category of articles for editors to expand (only articles are supposed to be stubs)." - My change would make this entire template moot, no? What exactly is the problem with having an un-substed stub template in the user space other than the category showing up? With my changes the pages wouldn't show up in the category, and therefore there would be no need to remove it from user pages. I would also tend to disagree with your point about userspace draft articles. Who knows how long these articles will ever be transferred to mainspace, if ever. Even if/when they are, the draft is often left in userspace, leaving it for someone to remove from the category. I would not consider it acceptable to leave a userspace page in a stub category because it "will appear there before long", and this seems to go against the wording of the stubbed user template affirming that "only articles are supposed to be stubs". I'm pretty sure userspace subpages, regardless if they are an article draft or not, can not be considered "articles", but this is in fact only referring to mainspace pages. Can't we wait for it to actually be created in mainspace for it to be categorized? I also think the issue of finding a better stub type can easily be solved after the move to mainspace, and I think whatever benefits of leaving userspace pages in the category for this reason would be far outweighed by the benefits of not having to deal with removing them from userspace in the first place. Can we get some other opinions as to the benefits of one version vs. the benefit of another? VegaDark (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your change would make moot the idea of removing the category, true, but it would not make moot the neccessity to explain to editors where stub templates should and shouldn't be placed. And if someone thinks it's ok to use a stub template on a user page, they clearly don't understand that it's only intended for articles - in which case, they are quite likely to add it to other pages where a different template is more appropriate. It's fairly common practice for stub sorters to have to remove {{stub}} from categories, for example, and replace them with {{popcat}}, the category equivalent, or to tag a talk page with a stub template, thinking that it's better there than on the article page. If you hide stub templates on categories and talk pages by removing them from Category:stubs, they will never get the templates they should get in the places they should get them. As to userspace draft articles, it is standard practice to change the stub templates from them for the very reason I've mentioned. Consider this example - someone creates a rough outline page from which they intend to build 250 articles about villages in Slovenia. Which is simpler - to change the one template on the rough draft, or to wait and change all 250 templates once the articles appear in articlespace? It saves a considerable amount of work to change the rough draft in userspace, and more often than not lets the editor concerned know that more appropriate stub templates are available for his or her use. As to getting more opinions, chances are you will get more discussion on this topic if you mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, given that WP:WSS does most of the work relating to stub templates. I would find it unlikely that you'd get a response too dissimilar from my comments above, though, since the standard practices I've mentioned were developed largely by that project for the reasons I've mentioned. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "what links here" function would work to find templates improperly on pages like talk pages or categories, which I would consider a better option (for very large categories this would become admittedly more difficult, however). I guess the idea that we are leaving this "hole" (so to speak) open in order to catch improper uses of the template doesn't sit well with me. I'd kind of liken that to leaving a regularly vandalized page purposely unprotected in order for us to make it easier to identify and block vandals. Also, I can see the benefit you mention in your second point, but I can't see this happening enough or on a large enough scale for the benefit outweighing the cost of showing non-namespace pages in categories. Should such a scenario ever occur, a simple bot request could make the change on all 250 or whatever pages it would be. I'm undecided if I will pursue making this change, but until then I will point anyone interested in de-polluting categories to Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories. There are tons of stub categories showing up here due to user pages being in them. VegaDark (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It does happen fairly frequently, and it's far easier to make a stitch in time to save the nine that would be required by cranking up one of WP:WSS's tame bots. As for whatlinkshere, when you consider that Category:Stubs often receives a dump of 2000+ stubs, it is ffar easier to just go to "U" in the category than to attempt to sift through it via the toolbox. And thatks for the link to "Polluted categories" - that definitely needs looking at, though in many cases it will probably be user subpages that have rough outline articles in them, as explained above. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Followup - I went through that list - it listed 31 stub categories in the 250 categories listed. It must have been fairly out of date, though - only eleven of those categories actually had user pages in them. of those, all but three were being legitimately used, and in four cases it looks like they were being used on subpage rough outlines that would produce a large number of stub articles (so much for that not happening very often!) Grutness...wha? 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categorization#User_namespace, "User subpages that are draft versions of articles should not be categorized into mainspace categories", so I would not say that any userspace draft articles with mainspace categories- including stub categories- are being "legitimately used". All of these need to be removed from userspace regardless of if they are a draft article or not. Also the polluted categories list updates 3 times a week, when you checked it I had already dealt with a good chunk of them. VegaDark (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Wikipedia:Categorization#User_namespace's rules work in a way that is not done by WP:WSS, and using them in that way would be very counterproductive for WP:WSS (I've suggested a slight wording change that would accommodate the way categorisation usually works here - the addition of just one word - at WP talk:Categorisation). As I've pointed out to you, of the "polluted categories" I checked, only three of the ones I checked had subpages that shouldn't have been there by normal WP:WSS working, and of the remainder there were several where not having them in categories would have caused us far more work at a later date. Perhaps that's a major reason why Wikipedia:Categorisation is a guideline rather than policy - because there are instances where it is better to ignore it. I would suggest it makes far more sense if user subpages are not categorised in mainspace permanent categories. If they're not in stub categories, how are we meant to be able to work on them while they're still in userspace? (and don't say "use whatlinkshere" - as I've already explained to you, that isn't a reasonable option). Grutness...wha? 06:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there, but to answer your question here of "If they're not in stub categories, how are we meant to be able to work on them while they're still in userspace?", my answer would be that we don't need to work on them while they are still in userspace (assuming you are talking about stub sorting, not the article itself-that's another issue alltogether). As I've maintained, I highly question that all these factors fall in to place enough to justify keeping the category on userspace pages: 1) Someone creates a draft article, 2) The draft article is a "form page", specifically intended as a template to create bunches of pages off of, 3) The author chooses the wrong stub type (presumably if an editor is creating mass articles about a subject they will be familiar with other pages relating to that subject, including relevant stub types, so I question how often this particular step would happen in connection with a "form page"), 4) Author in question creates bunches of pages based on the form page draft article, resulting in all pages in question being in the wrong stub type, and 5) Author finishes creating all pages before being notified by someone that the stub type is incorrect. I would have absolutely no problem with keeping the category if there was no drawback- Sure, why not increase the chance of fixing the category in the rare cases where this may occur? But the problem is that there is a drawback of cross-namespace contamination of categories intended for mainspace, which I don't feel is outweighed by the possible chance of avoiding the scenerio you present. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. VegaDark (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Both the stub sorting and further editing should be possible while draft articles are in userspace - in fact, I've given you several reasons why it's very important that stub sorting is done in userspace - it's highly desirable, if not imperative, for stubsorting that the category is retained on these userspace drafts. As I've pointed out, these "rare cases" are not at all rare - there are several of them in process at all times. And, as is clear from some of the comments at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, it is not only stub templates but various forms of maintenance template that this occurs withy. I don't see any reason why the "contamination" as you put it (a strange term, since there is no "contamination" at all, simply a correct usage of templates) is not explicitly limited to maintenance categories. Indeed, it does seem we are going to continue to disagree, as you seem to see things differently to those who actually work with stub templates on a daily basis. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW - have you checked earlier this page and in the archives? This is not the first time that the suggestion to remove the category from non-articlespace pages has come up, and it's been rejected each time. The most recent time was in June this year, and is still further up this page. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

Shouldn't there be a gold lock showing that this page is protected? Jonathan321 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)