Template talk:Stub

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why are we using the word "module" instead of "page" in the template? Is "module" genuinely better than the more familiar "page" and universally correct everywhere that the template "stub" will be used? A consideration. Thanks :-) --Rogerhc 01:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit source]

  • Rather than including the page name how about "This module is a stub ..." - avoids the problem of long page names in the box. Ktucker 22:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories Stubs and Stub pages[edit source]

What relation should {{stub}} which adds pages to the category Stubs have to {{welcome and expand}} which adds pages to a different category Stub pages. Should both templates add pages to the same category? Do we need both these catogories? Mystictim 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between a page that has the format of a Wikiversity learning resource (an attempt has been made to "wikify" the page) and a page that had been created and a sentence or two added or maybe a category tag. Some people use the term "sub-stub" and they have specific criteria by which a short page qualifies as a stub. Maybe "welcome and expand" should be for "sub-stubs". --JWSchmidt 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub types[edit source]

Today I created a specialized stub type for portal of Life Sciences as an example of stub sorting proposed here. It consists from the base template Template:StubBase and the Life Sciences stub template. All the stub types could be mentioned also in Category:Stub types. In this way the stubs can be categorized by topic. Please write your opinion about this approach, if it should be continued... :) The example of usage is on my user page. --Gbaor 13:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the Stub templates category, so the Category:Stub types may be omitted. --Gbaor 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to sort stubs. Anything you do along these lines will be a big help. Please note that Wikiversity "School:" pages are like Wikipedia's wikiprojects. It might be best to sort stubs according to school. --JWSchmidt 14:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Progress report: New stub types were created according to Wikiversity:Schools, also for schools, which were not founded yet. Practical Arts and Sciences, Professional Schools and Social Sciences are not done yet. Portal:Life Sciences is not listed on this page at all, this should be fixed. The tempates are in Category:Stub templates, all of them adds the pages to separate category in Category:Stubs. Default picture is included in all templates . --Gbaor 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: Templates for all major schools were created, StubBase how-to was added.--Gbaor 11:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized[edit source]

What should {{Uncategorized}} be used for? It seems to add a page to both Category:Uncategorized pages and Category:Category needed which seems a bit redundant (not to mention repetitive) Also, see my note at Template talk:Uncategorized about the broken link in the box. --mikeu 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

White space[edit source]

  • This template seems to add excessive white space at the top of articles?? -- Jtneill - Talk 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean {{stub}} ? I tested it and haven't seen any excessive withe space. Can you show any particular example? --Gbaor 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

stub[edit source]

why name it a stub? (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kieran2112 (talkcontribs) )

I think this name was introduced from Wikipedia to mark undeveloped resources. Just to be compatible with other projects somehow. --Gbaor 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Expectation of expansion[edit source]

What do people think about perhaps adding something to the effect that stubs shouldn't be created on Wikiversity for the sake of it. Unlike Wikipedia, where stubs exist as a way to get topics "on the board" for expansion at some undetermined later date, I feel like stubs here at Wikiversity should only be acceptable when there is a clear intention to develop them into fully-formed content. I almost feel like anything marked as a stub should be regularly considered as a deletion candidate if not expanded over some 60 or 90-day period. MyNameWasTaken 19:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the key differences between stubs on Wikipedia and here is that an encyclopedia article is essentially an extended definition of something. So a stub like "Paa liebigii is a species of frog in the Ranidae family" is already of some use, since it gives a definition. Perhaps we should distinguish between "just started" (doesn't serve its essential purpose) and "needs expansion" (serves its essential purpose, but lacks significant content). On Wikipedia, the former is almost always satisfied at creation, so 'stub' refers exclusively to the latter. Deleting "needs expansion" stubs would likely be inappropriate, though most stubs here would be considered "just started". If we do make this distinction, I think any sort of grace period between tagging and deletion should be shorter, say 7 days. This should encourage editors to expand useless stubs while the subject is still on their minds, as well as help stop serial stubbists early on. -- Rf 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. At Wikiversity, we generally don't call the second type of resource (such as Harvard chart method) stubs at all. --Claritas 21:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, I think the former should be subject to a 30 or 60 day review and deletion if not improved and the latter should not be considered stubs but rather fodder for the "incubator" MyNameWasTaken 22:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)