Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Wowpedia
Wowpedia
274,795
pages
in: Policy proposals, Votes in progress

Talk: Stub policy

Back to page
Revision as of 22:37, 6 July 2006 by Mikk38024@legacy41558003 (talk | contribs) (→‎Policy ratification vote)
Sign in to edit

Template:Archives1

Deprecated Stubs!

I went through all the articles linking to the deprecated stubs and used (hopefully) the correct stub. I Categorized the Lore articles with Stub/Lore, even though it doesn't exist just yet so that I wouldn't have to go back and recategorize them. I will probably create this soon if no one else does, but now would probably be a good time to just delete the deprecated stub templates that we don't want people using?? Also as I was categorizing the old section stubs and such a lot of them where using the sectionocat template even though they never actually used the section template that adds a category, so I have to agree with his comment on the front page that Template:Tlink is probably not needed.--Ralthor 09:31, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

I've tagged all the deprecated templates for deletion (except Template:Tlink itself, for good reason I believe) after making sure that they weren't even being linked to. --Mikk 13:25, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
Personally, I'd want to get rid of both of the Stub/Section tags. They're making zero sense to me. We could just as easily rephrase the other stub tags so that they say "article/section", and then people can use those. Actually, I'll just start a vote about it I think. --Mikk 10:36, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
I'm not all too fond of Sub/Section, however there may be a place for it. Let's say, under Orgrimmar (for example) all other sections of the city are covered, but not the Drag, you might want to tag that with a section stub. On the other hand, it might be best to just tag the section with Stub/Location or whatever would best belong there. Upon actually reading your comment better, I completely agree with you, Mikk. Wonder of wonders! Schmidt 10:54, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
Vote started below. --Mikk 13:25, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Proposal to get rid of Stub/Section and Stub/Section2

I assume I have to do this as a policy proposal, since the stub policy is .. well.. a policy? --Mikk 11:00, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Icon-question-48x48 This is a policy proposal and requires a vote to be ratified or rejected by the policy process.
  • You may vote and discuss on this policy's Discussion page.
  • Please do not take action until voting has met the policy voting policy requirements.

Stub/Section and Stub/Section2 do not make sense to me. There's no way of guessing what kind of page you'll end up on if you browse Category:Stubs/Section.

I think deprecating them and just rephrasing the rest of the stubs to work in a section context also makes more sense.

--Mikk 11:00, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Icon-policy This policy is under proposal.
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • Please read the policy voting policy before voting.
To vote
Click [Edit] in the upper-right hand corner of the votes section, and add your vote in one the following methods:
  • {{vote|Yes|~~~~|optional comment}}
or
  • {{vote|No|~~~~|optional comment}}
Then click Save page and you are done!
Replace |~~~~| with |sig=~~~~|| if you have a complicated signature!
Some proposals may have options other than yes or no. To use these, simply replace Yes/No with your desired option name.
To discuss the vote
Click [Edit] in the upper-right hand corner of the comments section.
The voting process
If one side has reached five votes and has outnumbered the other by 3 to 1 for seven days, that side has won and you may make the following changes based on the outcome:

== Policy ratification vote ==

The Yes votes are now winning 5:0. This policy proposal will become ratified on 13 July unless the situation changes.
Yes
  1. Yes Mikk 11:01, 4 June 2006 (EDT) - (my idea so...)
  2. Yes Schmidt 20:06, 24 June 2006 (EDT) - ()
  3. Yes Fandyllic 7:38 PM PDT 24 Jun 2006 - (See below.)
  4. Yes Kirkburn 17:55, 25 June 2006 (EDT) - ()
  5. Yes Foogray 13:46, 6 July 2006 (EDT) - ()
No


Comments

  • I've already edited the stub templates to say "article or section". They might be a bit too bloaty for use in sections though. I think I'll go through and make some things <small>. --Mikk 07:05, 5 June 2006 (EDT)
  • I'm giving a qualified support, since the regular stubs are pretty bloaty to be used just for unfinished sections. The whole section stuff was an idea to indicate the article was mostly filled out (not really a stub), but an important section was effectively empty. --Fandyllic 7:40 PM PDT 24 Jun 2006


Community content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement