I notice you added a line to this. It's fair enough, I suppose the {{stub}} code should be added at the bottom of the article, but on those articles where it's at the top (and I have to admit I'm guilty of that) it looks wrong. I don't know whether to remove the line or just leave it as it is, but if we leave it I would like to have some written guideline that {{stub}} should go at the bottom of the article. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:44, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Well, I see two solutions. A temporary solution would be to add another line to the bottom of the Stub template until {{stub}} tag is removed to the bottom of articles in which the tag was placed at the top. A permanent solution would be to invoke policy that mandates the Stub tag position at the bottom of articles. Adraeus 03:47, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)
Well, there is a third solution; just remove the line. I notice wikipedia doesn't use any lines, and reading the stub template talk page editors have discussed the use of boxes around this text and decided against it on the grounds that it is distracting. I don't mind any of the options. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:53, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)
Wikipedia is slowly moving towards using boxes for all its notification templates. For example, the Cleanup template. The Stub template on Wikipedia would have a line, but Wikipedia's Stub template is not editable. In my opinion, separating the system notification from the article's content is important. Adraeus 03:58, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)
Well in that case it seems sensible to use a box for the stub template. We could use a similar style to that of the cleanup template. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:42, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)


For stub templates, why not link the word "stub" and "help" to an information page on the Guild Wiki, rather than redirecting the user to Wikipedia? For example, linking it to a GuildWiki: project page instead. Just a suggestion.. --Ivan 22:18, 22 July 2006 (CDT)

Stubs don't get enough care, there are categories stagnating with stubs which aren't, and articles are (or at least were from very recntly) having stubs added without any thought to what it means >< If you want to write one go ahead but I don't think it would get too much interest from ppl to do one — Skuld Monk 03:20, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

What makes an article a stub?

I'm just wondering what exactly makes an article a stub. I've been looking at a lot of articles over the last few days and have noticed that many of them are labeled as stubs, but I can't think of how much more information we are wanting. For an example see: Shepherd of Verata - how much more information is there about these things that could be useful? Is this sufficient reason to remove the stub marker? Any thoughts would be appreciated. 14:32, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Many articles are tagged as stubs that shouldn't be any longer. The particular one to which you linked is a prime example. Per Project:Style and formatting/Bestiary, the article contains all that is required, and no comments about missing/needed information is in the talk page, so I believe the stub tag can be removed from that one. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:38, 29 December 2006 (CST)
AH! Thanks, I'll use that as a reference in the future, and start updating pages as required. Healer Monk 14:43, 29 December 2006 (CST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.