Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Stub"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(→Stub overuse: new section) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
So the main issues I have putting an error for no reason is: | So the main issues I have putting an error for no reason is: | ||
| − | * There are dozens of articles with just stub. Basically I don't think anyone is gonna update them. It looks even uglier as a viewer becauses | + | * There are dozens of articles with just stub. Basically I don't think anyone is gonna update them. It looks even uglier as a viewer becauses the error is clearly not meant to be seen, but pages tend to not be updated for months at a time |
* (As an editor) Reaching for the | and = keys are annoying to type | * (As an editor) Reaching for the | and = keys are annoying to type | ||
* There are times where I don't know what it is. Putting "general stub" isn't any more helpful tan simply putting the template, it causes the same problem. Therefore, why not let the template do it automatically? | * There are times where I don't know what it is. Putting "general stub" isn't any more helpful tan simply putting the template, it causes the same problem. Therefore, why not let the template do it automatically? | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Stub overuse == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Right now the wiki has 1473 content pages. It also has marked 719 of those articles as stubs. Almost exactly 50%. I think the stub template is ''wildly'' overused. Are really half the articles here so short on information to be deserving of a stub status? I certainly think not. Some of them could be chapters in a book, yet here they are marked as stubs. I don't think this makes sense. All articles can be expanded upon in some way probably, but that doesn't mean they should be given a stub status. Stub ought to be used for truly "too short" articles, very bareboned ones. [[User:Pangaea|Pangaea]] ([[User talk:Pangaea|talk]]) 16:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:52, 22 November 2022
Reason omit error[edit]
Probably better to put in a talk page.
So the main issues I have putting an error for no reason is:
- There are dozens of articles with just stub. Basically I don't think anyone is gonna update them. It looks even uglier as a viewer becauses the error is clearly not meant to be seen, but pages tend to not be updated for months at a time
- (As an editor) Reaching for the | and = keys are annoying to type
- There are times where I don't know what it is. Putting "general stub" isn't any more helpful tan simply putting the template, it causes the same problem. Therefore, why not let the template do it automatically?
Stub overuse[edit]
Right now the wiki has 1473 content pages. It also has marked 719 of those articles as stubs. Almost exactly 50%. I think the stub template is wildly overused. Are really half the articles here so short on information to be deserving of a stub status? I certainly think not. Some of them could be chapters in a book, yet here they are marked as stubs. I don't think this makes sense. All articles can be expanded upon in some way probably, but that doesn't mean they should be given a stub status. Stub ought to be used for truly "too short" articles, very bareboned ones. Pangaea (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)