 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I propose that we change the text of the Stub message to read as follows:
This article is a shell—a short article intended to encourage additions. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
There is only one link: the word "expanding" should be linked to Wikipedia:s_link, which can then be redirected as we see fit.
- -Anthropos 22:07, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Why? They're called stubs. They've always been that and I don't think there's a need to change this. Also, a shell implies the article structure is already laid out, which is not the case for most stubs. Angela. 05:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with Dori and Angela on this. Jwrosenzweig 20:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Proposal:
| This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- No, please don't add tables and colors. Having tags on articles is bad enough already without making them stand out so much they become the focus of the page. Angela. 03:20, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
Noo!! It's too messy. Keep it discreet. — Sverdrup 18:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, I don't like that at all. Please revert it. -- Djinn112 18:52, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
I like it; I think that it's both more attractive and more prominent, which might help stubs expand more quickly. -- Seth Ilys 18:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
At the very least there should be a poll before this is adopted. Dori | Talk 19:52, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the boxes and colors are not pleasant to my taste. Every now and then I wish people would be a tiny bit less bold. :-) But I don't know table markup well enough to boldly switch it back -- has it been done now? Jwrosenzweig 20:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I can't be bold and switch it back. This page is protected. =b Fennec 21:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The previous version had no tables. (Btw, all: use the NEW table markup!) — Sverdrup 20:30, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have to say I don't like this change. There are thousands of stubs, we have to accept that we're going to live with them for a long time, so what's the point in making the notice more prominent? There simply aren't enough users to "finish" wikipedia overnight, nor do I think people should be particularly directed to expand stubs rather than create new articles... one of the joys of wikipedia is people can contribute on subjects they're interested in, whenever it's convenient to them. fabiform | talk 20:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Lolzor, what a thought; finish Wikipedia. Fab definitely has a point; stubs will always be the bottom 25 % of wikipedia, so there is no quick sugar-additive to make away with them. — Sverdrup 20:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A poll asking this in advance would have been nice. I don't particularly care for it myself, however. Fennec 21:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, I reverted back. Very few people seemed to like it. Please use a poll if you want to change it to the new one. Dori | Talk 21:37, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
- They might look better left-aligned (or even right-aligned) rather than centred. It's not so much a problem with this one, but {{msg:Disambig}} looks decidedly clumsy. Remember: we need to look good on all screen resolutions and font sizes. –Hajor 00:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
FYI: There is another version at Template:Tolkienstub:
This article related to J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
User:Docu
I've removed the protection from this page, so that everyone can participate in the edit war. -- Tim Starling 23:27, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)