FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types

Template names
Instead of have a stub template for every grouping, for example: ,, &. . . Is there a reason we cannot have these same as one template, such as: ,, & ? This would definitely make it easier to have new groupings, but may not maintain some kind of control that someone may want. It may also have some drawback such as flag display, but that may be got around in another method, at least in many cases. If this is not a possibility, what about the template names be reversed so that they are group alphabetically and maybe easier to find alphabetically, such as: ,, & ? Thomas_Lerman 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from, but I think using the asbox base template and passing specifics for each separate template is the best way. You hit on the reason why. If each specific stub template is to use a different image then if only one stub template was used it would need to be updated for each variation. As for the naming convention for the stubs why would reversing the order make them easier to find? --Steve 15:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will have to check out the templates, but do not believe flags are that hard to get updated. Wikipedia handles it fine all of the time. Why would reversing the order make it easier??? If someone knows it is a "stub" but do not remember the name, they can find it alphabetically very easily . . . just another way of easily finding things (not everyone uses the categories to find things). Thomas_Lerman 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If your not talking about finding things via categories I assume you are talking about searching for them. Either way if a user searches for stub england or england stub they will find the articles. Putting the word stub at the end means that the unique part of the object is given first and follows the pattern that has been used for articles in the main namespace eg. England History, England Probate Records etc. Please let me know if I am missing something when you talk about grouped alphabetically. --Steve 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)