Template talk:Stub: Difference between revisions
(fixing something) |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
Is it cool if I replace the link on "stub" to [[PipeProject:Unstubify]] instead of the category? The link to the category is unnecessary anyway since it shows up at the bottom.--{{User|Knife}} 17:38, 24 December 2009 (EST) | Is it cool if I replace the link on "stub" to [[PipeProject:Unstubify]] instead of the category? The link to the category is unnecessary anyway since it shows up at the bottom.--{{User|Knife}} 17:38, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ||
:Fine for me. BUt it will still categorize them, right? --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 17:45, 24 December 2009 (EST) | :Fine for me. BUt it will still categorize them, right? --{{User:Tucayo/sig}} 17:45, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ||
::Yup, categorizing is a totally different feature thanks to <includeonly> {{User|Marioguy1}} | ::Yup, categorizing is a totally different feature thanks to <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> {{User|Marioguy1}} | ||
:::That's actually a splendid idea! - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 18:24, 24 December 2009 (EST) | :::That's actually a splendid idea! - {{User:Edofenrir/sig}} 18:24, 24 December 2009 (EST) |
Revision as of 14:10, December 2, 2010
A nice gray border might be good. Para Yoshi Wahoo! 19:32, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
Nooooo... Not really. 3dejong
- I don't think it looks very nice. It kind of separates the template from the article. Monty Mole (Talk·Contribs) 19:43, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
I made it look a little better. Yep, still don't think it's needed. --Steve (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
Thats good. XyzCoRy123ABC 04:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Hey...
Since any article that is a stub is deleted, why do we still HAVE this template? TheGreatBlockyBoo 19:02, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- There are still a ton of stub articles on the wiki that were previously created. -- Son of Suns
- About stubs.... What if there is little info and no way to get more? TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:29, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
- There should always be a way to get more info. Be creative! -- Son of Suns
So... Once the stubs are gone, the template goes too? Max2 (talk)
- Well, we don't need to delete it, just in case stubs become okay again (which won't happen until we expand our current stubs). -- Son of Suns
- <.> Why is it that we hate stubs? TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:43, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
- WHAT HE SAID. TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:55, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
S***. Some info is better than none. XyzCoRy123ABC 04:03, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Stub or Rewrite-expand?
Is there any policy of when to use this template and when that one? To me, they seem to serve exactly the same purpose. I always wonder which to use on short articles (using both seems redundant). Time Questions 13:16, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
- The way I saw it used, Stub seems to be used for articles that amount to nothing more than "X is a character/items/thing in [game]", while RW-expand is for article that do have informations, but incredibly unspecific and poorly written. But yeah, there's no policy for those templates. --Blitzwing 14:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Revision
Is it cool if I replace the link on "stub" to PipeProject:Unstubify instead of the category? The link to the category is unnecessary anyway since it shows up at the bottom.--Knife (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)