Template talk:incomplete list

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 22:44, 9 April 2009

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)

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)

Identical to sectionstub. Too many templates spoils the Wiki. Delete. – The Chort 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this one. This template seems to alert users that they can help the wiki by finding more instances of the running gag/whatever else this could be used with. Since this could be relatively easy to do (type and search), I'd be a lot less hesitant to do it. Weak Keep. -- Super Martyo boing! 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "stub" implies something exceedingly short. Sometimes, a list can be very long and still not be complete. The word "stub" isn't appropriate in that case, and we should use another term, such as "incomplete list", instead. Keep. Heimstern Läufer 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been informed that "this is not what [this template] is for" [1]. If not, it should be, or something similar should be. Calling non-short articles that aren't complete "stubs" is counterintuitive to the meaning of the word "stub" and likely to confuse users unfamiliar with our terminology. Heimstern Läufer 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Heimstern Loafer- er, 'Läufer', "stub" isn't correct terminology. Stub=unfinished and/or cut part of a whole subject. Not what "incomplete list" means. It's a keeper. That Game Dude 386 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the Wiki riddled with lists. In fact, most of our section stubs are mostly incomplete lists. If we just get rid of the box-look and the limitations for just using this on table-lists, I say let's Keep it. Besides, we could work something out using a parameter for a box-look and non-box-look, right? --64.149.213.65 01:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually a part of the table?

Would there be some way to make this template become a part of the table where it used? I'm not too sure how it would easily work, considering it'd need to be able to detect how many columns the table has so it can use colspan and display properly. Like this (adapted from the current look):

And work like this in MediaWiki syntax:

{|
...
| Is || some || data
{{incomplete list}}
|}

Now, that's not exactly perfect syntax, but I think you guys know what I mean. If we're able to do this, and also make a parameter to choose wether to make this a table-based or list-based incomplete list, like I mentioned earlier in the subject above this one, (64.149.213.65, 2008/11/20), I think we can safely keep this template. Sorry if this is a no-brainer problem, but my MediaWiki tables and ParserFunctions skills are not that good. --75.28.91.38 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)