Template talk:FamilySearch Historical Records-stub

Using Asbox template
The "minor changes" removed the meta-template asbox. This template has been created so that a consistent approach is used for all stub templates. My guess is one of the reasons for doing this was to make the note appear on the same line as the rest of the text. A small amendment and a new parameter inline note now makes this possible. This template will add all articles marked with the stub to Category:FamilySearch Historical Records stubs. --Steve 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wording Changes
I see your point. The reason I had edited the template, however, was to remove the italic font and change the wording no longer fits what we want to say in the template. How can we edit the template to keep the meta-template, but change "a stub" to "incomplete"? --Chelsie


 * OK, stub templates are used for marking articles that are in need of much work, a general statement about the status of the article. Marking an article as incomplete would elicit the question what is needed to complete the article. Therefore, I think you would be better off using the expand section template. If you will need to use a template with the same parameter many times then you could create a template to do this. Then if you decide to change the message, it can be done by editing this one derivative template.
 * While the expand section template can be used to highlight specific development needs, have you considered marking articles as stubs when they are first created, then once some development has taken place and some contributors have been engaged, adding the expand section (or a derivative) to describe what is needed to complete a particular section? --Steve 15:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

New wording question
Because the HRCStub template is such a specific template, I'm not sure this sentence makes sense: "If possible, try to find the most appropriate stub template for the article. A full list can be found at FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types." The next bullet IS very helpful, though, because someone may not realize that an article can have more than one stub template. I would also recommend removing the section "What is a stub?" and simply link the word stub in the first paragraph to the article Stub in the FamilySearch wiki namespace. Here is a streamlined version:

General information
This is a stub template.


 * Two or more different stub templates may be used, if necessary.
 * Place a stub template at the very end of the article, after any navigation templates, and the category tags. As usual, templates are added by including their name inside double curly brackets, e.g. FamilySearch Historical Records-stub.

For for more information, see FamilySearch Wiki:Stub.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembley (talk | contribs) 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Granted this is a very specific stub template. The wording used in the documentation for this template is from Template:Stub documentation that is used to provide the documentation for all the stubs. I'm not against making changes to clarify the message, but I think that the message about using the most appropriate template is important enough to keep. Perhaps the section heading could be changed to General Information about all stubs. --Steve 16:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What about providing an example of another template that might be relevant to use in combination? I could see adding a geography-specific stub template. Are there others? From a style guide perspective, I think articles should focus specifically on the topic, then link to, but not repeat general information available elsewhere within the wiki. Lembley 17:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lise, I think this discussion would be better recorded on the talk page were the changes would be made. Either Template talk:Stub documentation if you would like to change the documentation used for all the stub templates and/or FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Stub sorting if it's more about the process of adding stubs and how to go about that. --Steve 12:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)