Template talk:incomplete list
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (not sure why this is necessary) |
(+tbd and reason) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{tbd}} | ||
==Incomplete Lists vs. Stubs== | ==Incomplete Lists vs. Stubs== | ||
E.L.Cool suggested that a template like this should be used instead of <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> for lists such as [[Fonts]], [[Main Page Messages]], etc. I guess it could be made to look better, and we should decide on whether we add it to each incomplete list or to each article that has an incomplete list.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | E.L.Cool suggested that a template like this should be used instead of <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> for lists such as [[Fonts]], [[Main Page Messages]], etc. I guess it could be made to look better, and we should decide on whether we add it to each incomplete list or to each article that has an incomplete list.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
::In fact E.L. Cool did suggest this idea (albeit on IRC, which is why you don't remember the conversation). In response to the fact that you thought of this idea too, well, what can I say, great minds think alike. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ::In fact E.L. Cool did suggest this idea (albeit on IRC, which is why you don't remember the conversation). In response to the fact that you thought of this idea too, well, what can I say, great minds think alike. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::I still don't quite see why this template is necessary. It's just a special case of {{t|sectionstub}}. Regarding Venusy's suggestion, the reason I spoke against it was because Wikipedia's template is designed ''never'' to be removed from the article, which is not desirable in our case. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | :::I still don't quite see why this template is necessary. It's just a special case of {{t|sectionstub}}. Regarding Venusy's suggestion, the reason I spoke against it was because Wikipedia's template is designed ''never'' to be removed from the article, which is not desirable in our case. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | ==Deletion== | ||
| + | I agree with It's dot com's reasoning from a year ago: We should use {{t|sectionstub}} instead of this template. There is really no need for this, and it should be '''deleted'''.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:49, 4 February 2008
Incomplete Lists vs. Stubs
E.L.Cool suggested that a template like this should be used instead of {{stub}} for lists such as Fonts, Main Page Messages, etc. I guess it could be made to look better, and we should decide on whether we add it to each incomplete list or to each article that has an incomplete list. Loafing
22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know the wording is different and all, but for some reason this really reminds me of the solution I proposed for this stub conflict resolution. --
ENUSY 
23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- In fact E.L. Cool did suggest this idea (albeit on IRC, which is why you don't remember the conversation). In response to the fact that you thought of this idea too, well, what can I say, great minds think alike. Heimstern Läufer
00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't quite see why this template is necessary. It's just a special case of {{sectionstub}}. Regarding Venusy's suggestion, the reason I spoke against it was because Wikipedia's template is designed never to be removed from the article, which is not desirable in our case. — It's dot com 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- In fact E.L. Cool did suggest this idea (albeit on IRC, which is why you don't remember the conversation). In response to the fact that you thought of this idea too, well, what can I say, great minds think alike. Heimstern Läufer
Deletion
I agree with It's dot com's reasoning from a year ago: We should use {{sectionstub}} instead of this template. There is really no need for this, and it should be deleted. Loafing 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
