Template talk:Sectstub

The 'Substub' category

I think it's a bad idea to have a category for an article be that a section is a stub. As an instance of the oddness of it, on articles with multiple substub notices the category listing "Stub section" will appear multiple times at the bottom. I don't see why we can't direct someone to "What links here" instead. VV 11:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The expansion portion could be worked on to include the edit of the specific section as opposed to the whole article -- however, I don't know how to do that. --[[User:Allyunion| AllyUnion (talk)]] 11:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there any way to make change the action of "help" link to section edit? --Shervinafshar 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This would require a MediaWiki software change, such as a [[HiddenCategory:Whatever]] usage, which would add an article to a category but not list the category on the page itself. Feature request, I suppose? • Benc • 20:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adding an image

The image tends to disrupt the flow of the following section. I propose removing it. —Ashley Y 06:51, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Done. —Ashley Y 10:59, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Making it inline rather than "left" fixes the flow disruption issue. Restored. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of the image? It does still mess up the look of the page, as the entire line of text bcomes taller. Ec5618 18:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, what's the point of the image? User:Stevietheman put the images back citing that 'Wikipedia stub msgs are moving toward having images associated with them'. Why is this true and what is the point? The sectstub should, in my opinion, be a subtle reminder that the section is still rather bare, and that a contribution to it would be appreciated. -- Ec5618 17:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I support the image. Images let you quickly identify templates. --MarSch 30 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)

I think the image is ugly and disrupts flow, but I understand the value of having an image in all stub tags. That said, how about a smaller image? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This was done by A Man In Black on August 13, 2005. howcheng {chat} 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"'Wikipedia stub msgs are moving toward having images associated with them'. Why is this true and what is the point?" Indeed. Moreover, why lump this template in with the rest when all other stub messages appear at the bottom of the page where disruption of text is not an issue? Jimp 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add a link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:Phần sơ khai]]</noinclude>

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also add [[no:Mal:Seksjonstubb]]. __meco 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There's now a Finnish equivalent [[fi:Malline:Tynkä/Osa]] --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. NCurse _work 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

Shouldn't this be renamed to something not using the word "stub", following the category rename? Perhaps to {{sectexp}}, or similar? I'd suggest keeping this as a redirect for the time being, though. Alai 06:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Done the redirect, but could be a different. (Sub)Stub is when there is no text or only a few text. Expand could be used when there is text, but one want more text--Mac 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit link improvement

When clicking to edit the section the entire article appears in the editor. Couldn't this be modified so that only the section appears in the editor. __meco 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not in any way I see. —Mets501 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh? And why not? You can do that quite easily by clicking on the [Edit] link. OneWeirdDude 23:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Links in the template

I propose changing the first link in the template to point directly at Wikipedia:Stub instead of pointing to the old redirect page. Also I propose removing the link on the "help" text (since it also points to Wikipedia:Stub). Also I propose changing "adding to it" to "expanding it" per the usual wording on other stub templates. Thanks! --- RockMFR 18:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Ligulem 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please add lang:bg

bg:Шаблон:Секция мъниче Thanks--Петър Петров 16:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done by applying the Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please add further interwikis to Template:Sectstub/doc (not protected) --Ligulem 09:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

<div class="notice metadata plainlinks" id="stub">
{|style="width:100%;background:none"
|width=60px|[[Image:Wiki letter w.svg|45px]]
|''This section is a [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]]. You can help by [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it].''
|}</div><includeonly>[[Category:{{{1|}}} articles with sections needing expansion]]</includeonly><noinclude>
----
{{/doc}}
</noinclude>

Which looks like this:

---

{{/doc}}

---

-- PatrickFisher 06:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why you see the icon should be 10px larger? Zsinj^Talk 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, minus the image size increase. Zsinj^Talk 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The image

There is an SVG version of the image, so I suggest to change the image to this one. Cristan 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

still disrupts flow

Is there like a line break after it or is the image actually that big that it messes up the page flow?--Urthogie 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwikilink to Swedish wp

Please add [[sv:Mall:Stubavsnitt]] so to link to the Swedish equivalence. --Bensin 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Idem for it.wiki

it:Template:S sezione. Bye!

{{editprotected}} --Bensin 13:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This template has a /doc subpage that everyone can edit. No editprotected is needed to add interwikis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

invite only non-infringing material

This discussion has been moved to Template talk:stub#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)

A little bulky

I use the normal stub templates all the time, but I've always avoided section-stub because it tends to dwarf the sections it's posted in. Seems like that problem could be largely dealt with by just shrinking the font like Template:fact and either axing or radically shrinking the image. Just a style thing, but it'd be interesting to see if anyone else feels the same way.

Seems like templates that may be used within multiple sections of an article should have minimal impact, unlike those reserved for a single section like the cleanup templates & NPOV, neutrality flags. Unlike those, it is possible to have a lengthy article that doesn't meet the stub definition that has multiple sections calling for this. MrZaius^talk 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, making the change. Please discuss if you see any issues with it, but this should be far less intrusive and will still get the job done. MrZaius^talk 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Didn't spot that it was protected. Is anyone watching this that can implement the change or weigh in on it? MrZaius^talk 15:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed change. __meco 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Then, to minimize the impact of this template, which, given that it is not centered like a normal cleanup template and, like Template:Fact can feasibly be used multiple times within a start-class article, here's the edit request - Please replace with the code from User:Mrzaius/sandbox/template: {{editprotected}} Note that the image really doesn't work at the shrunk down size, but templates like Fact don't tend to include any sort of graphical content anyway. Even so, if the image is deemed necessary, the code to render it is in the link above, just commented out. MrZaius^talk 14:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Before making this edit, I'd like to make sure that there's a consensus for the exact version of the template to use (with/without image), and that this shrinking is needed at all. If there's a consensus to do so, or no input after a reasonable length of time, the edit should probably be made. --ais523 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the change -- I personally lean towards removing the image altogether (it should probably be less obtrusive, if we can have several copies on the same page), but if the masses favor keeping the image, we can at least shrink it or find a smaller one. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the same shrunk down version of the template, but w/the scaled down image un-commented out - Honestly, I'm not sure whether it's more beneficial to have the graphical queue that it's a stub or to have it be simple as possible. Note that the old thought that the image is a valuable link to Template:Stub is no longer really valid, due to the effectiveness of our stub sorters. MrZaius^talk 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I still favor dropping the image, but with or without it, that's infinitely better than the current template. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I added a plainlinks class to keep the template similar to Template:stub; the arrow next to the link looked goofy next to such small text. I retained the image because it's been around for a long time, and I think having only text will blend in too much. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! MrZaius^talk 04:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you ought to get rid of the image. It looks like nothing so much as a dead poppy. I wound up on this talk page while trying to figure out what the picture was and why it was relevant. Now that I know what it is, it wasn't worth knowing, so remove the image so other people won't have to also waste time figuring it out. --Polymath69 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Is it just me or the current wording is not good English?

This section stub requires expansion.

What's "section stub"? Maybe "stub-section" or "stubby section" would be better? Ideas? Renata 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It just means some of us have been here too long and begun to think of "section stub" as a normal phrase. It really would make more sense to change "section stub" to "short section". If the use of the word stub must be preserved, we could use "section is a stub that" or "section is a stub requiring expansion", but both of those would considerably increase its footprint. Any objections to "short section"? MrZaius^talk 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC) PS: I intentionally left the link out as WP:STUB does not currently cover section stubs at all, referring the user to the poorly written Help:Section instead. If we need the link, we'd better fix the stub page or write a section-specific one. MrZaius^talk 18:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am good with "This short section requires expansion." Stub is really a whole article. Renata 02:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else an opinion before I change it? Renata 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed. Renata 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why "short"?

(Sorry I didn't get into this debate last summer.) Why use "short section" instead of just "section"?—Markles 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Seeing no answer, I've removed "short." —Markles 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

background color

{{editprotected}} This template is displayed inside article, but this is maintenance tag, not content of article. Only article contents should have white background, except that in foot section. Add a background color with or without border, like in other maintenance tags like cleanup, unreferenced etc. Thira&lasto 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If consensus develops for this I'll do it, but having no background color is the standard for regular stub tags, which this parallels. It would be an intentional change to make this more visible by adding border and color. 13:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CBM (talk • contribs)

Actually, all other likesized templates that I'm aware of, ala {{fact}}, lack background colors as well. This template, like those, was intended to more cleanly integrate with the article text to allow multiple uses without swallowing up the rest of the article. Adding the clear border around this template and intentionally making it stand out as much as Thira&Laso would seem contrary to standard practice with both stub templates and other small cleanup templates, and overly distracting. MrZaius^talk 15:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed major edits

I've proposed some major edits to this and other related pages at Template talk:Expand. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. It seems like there's basically nowhere in policy that refers to "section stub" and the editor who brought it up in the talk above was right to point out that the phrase is needlessly wiki-specific jargon: As a result, we no longer use the word "stub" in the template text. Could blow away expand-section and move this there, adopting the other cat and merging this one's into it. Came out of a recent AfD. MrZaius^talk 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ambox

{{editprotected}}

This template should be converted to Template:Ambox, for uniformity of all messages that appear in article.

Thanks. Lara_bran 08:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

N Not done This change would be controversial; see Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes/Archive 6#Inclusion of the stub templates for the last time it was proposed (and it failed to reach consensus then). Consensus can change, but it would probably be inappropriate to boldly make this change without first gaining consensus for it. --ais523 08:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. But that discussion was for "article stub" message which appears in the bottom of the article. But this template is "section stub", which appears in the middle of the article. It would be uniform if "section stub" in ambox and "article stub" without ambox, since that message will be at the bottom of the article. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean this is the only single stub-template that appears in the middle of the article, all rest of the stub-templates appear at the bottom of the article. So making only this stub-template wont be controversial. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not done. Please discuss this first at the relevant page. Changing this over to ambox is a major change. This template is more like a stub tag than a message box. --- RockMFR 14:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference...

...between this template and {{expand-section}}? (Other than the visual differences, of course.) In what situations should I use this template or that one? 71.245.108.146 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A question that has been bugging many of us at WP:WSS for some time. as such, see below... Grutness...wha? 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sectstub

Template:Sectstub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.. Due to the high-use/protected status of this template, the standard Tfd template has not been attached to the template itself, but is rather attached here: {{Tfd|Sectstub}}

NEverexpand links

{{editprotected}} Hi, can the class "plainlinks" be changed to "plainlinksneverexpand", please? It seems a little silly that a print version of an article displays the template as

 "This section requires expansion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sectstub&action=edit&section=2)."

Thanks, Smith609 Talk 12:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Double redirect

Redirecting this template has created a lot of double redirects (see Template:Section-stub for instance). Can this be fixed? Kariteh (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)