Template talk:Welcome and expand

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Categories Stubs and Stub pages[edit]

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]

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]

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]

  • 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]

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]

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)

This template[edit]

This template really driving me mad. What are parameters to place it in sites?--Juan 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Over 1 year later: what parameters? It doesn't need any. --McCormack 20:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revising this template in May 2008[edit]

I've implemented some rather bold changes to this template today, in the hope of getting some ideas flowing from others. The idea I've had is to turn this template into something that actually helps people develop an educational resource, and additionally to categorise the page rather more thoroughly into clean-up categories. Discussion invited. --McCormack 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the changes; however, I'm wondering whether now it would now be better to use substitution instead of transclusion when using this template? -- Jtneill - Talk 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Here my initial reaction after using it and being not aware the template was changed: "OMG, what has become of the welcome and expand template ?"
After usage, the original 6 lines from the page turned now into a "mountain" full of text/info. This is certainly fine for newcomers to get acquainted here. Perhaps also the red category links did their part in my initial reaction :-C
The intention/idea is certainly good, but when I saw how much to do regarding that template, I just did not get motivated (at least at this hour). Let's see when I wake up tomorrow.
I would also recommend to use subst from now on. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I just used it with subst the first time here:
the categories are now not included :-(
clicked then on the promising "Wikipedia has more about this subject: Statistics 103". But well, there was nothing yet available at WP about w:Statistics 103 :-( Didn't try the other links, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
How about changing the text from "xyz has ..." to "xyz can have ..." ? And using an expand box to not show all info at once (e.g. from sister project searches WP only and the others in the expand box ?) so it is not such an overwhelming info at first sight ? Turned also redlink-city away :-) ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Some replies[edit]

Substitution: I'd recommend not using subst: because the great thing about not using it is that we can retrospectively recategorise the mess on Wikiversity. Instead we should perhaps concentrate on taming my changes until they are more acceptable. --McCormack 04:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: yes, I entirely agree with you, Erkan. The interwiki boxes normally create a category link, but this makes no sense on a w&e page where their purpose is merely temporary. I've revised the interwiki boxes so that they have an optional parameter for switching off the category, and I've then revised the w&e template so that it implements these new parameters. --McCormack 05:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording the interwiki boxes: yes, I already had this on my workplan as well. I realised as soon as I saw the earlier result of this template that the old wording wasn't suitable. I've reworded them all this morning. Any better? --McCormack 05:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording the green boxes: they need this as well. Working on it. --McCormack 05:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Layout issues: thinking about it. --McCormack 05:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • OK: after a lot of editing, the original 9 boxes (well, 11 actually) has been cut down to 4 by creating some new multi-purpose project boxes. I've also done some alignment stuff which ensures that the special project boxes are all both top- and bottom-aligned. I think the result is an improvement, but is this enough? --McCormack 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Where the links go: originally most of the interwiki boxes ran a search, but a few of them, including the Wikipedia one, attempted to link to a precise article instead. After reading Erkan's comment I experimented and found that the search function always produces better results. All boxes now do a search now. --McCormack 05:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reaction. When comparing to the last version: it looks now more compact. I like this better. Also I like the rewording in the boxes now with the search: this transmits the user a positive effect (by showing a list of found things, so she is not disappointed when finding nothing and can look further herself). I also agree to Remi, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 07:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Uuh? What did Remi say? --McCormack 07:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispaly problems[edit]

This template displays quite oddly in IE 6. The template text in just the top box is shift over right and down about 150 pixels from where the box is, and a horizontal scroll is created. --Michael Everhart 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

minimal version[edit]

Perhaps for some pages, a smaller template akin to the older one may be more appropriate... --Remi 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Green box?[edit]

What green box? --JWSchmidt 05:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)