Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Stubs"
From MormonWiki
(Top or Bottom) |
(→Top or Bottom) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Let's get a consensus before we get too many stubs. :) | Let's get a consensus before we get too many stubs. :) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Tallred]] Aug 4, 2006 | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Stubs at top makes sense. Categories, however, I tend to put at the bottom because: | ||
| + | # That's where they end up on the article | ||
| + | # That's where the Wikipedia articles I've looked at seemed to put them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Amaranth|Amaranth]] 12:47, 4 August 2006 (MDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 11:47, 4 August 2006
- Okay, I admittedly don't know much about stubs and templates. From what I can tell, we don't really have that many stub articles and we probably don't need many stub categories. The BOM Character stub and an all-purpose stub could probably suffice. I would recommend being consitent. Since I have plenty of other projects, I'll leave stubs to reds0xfan and Tallred and stick with categorization.Amaranth 14:38, 3 August 2006 (MDT)
Top or Bottom
There seems to be some differing opinions for putting the stub template at the top or the bottom of the page. I would prefer to place it at the top for two reasons.
- The reader is notified right at the beginning what to expect
- This is the way Wikipedia seems to do it on all of the pages I've seen
Let's get a consensus before we get too many stubs. :)
User:Tallred Aug 4, 2006
Stubs at top makes sense. Categories, however, I tend to put at the bottom because:
- That's where they end up on the article
- That's where the Wikipedia articles I've looked at seemed to put them.
Amaranth 12:47, 4 August 2006 (MDT)
