Isn't this the same as a stub? 
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is just for a section, whereas the stub template is for a whole page that needs expansion.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, maybe it could look like the stub, except be "section stub" or "stub/section" and not add the category. Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno, I like it how it is. Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- me too! I even added a picture of gobo ;D
Dazman (talk | contribs) 20:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I could easily make some code so you can combine these templates.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since then, it has acquired a different use. Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- The stub is a page that is extremely short (wider than its height), while the Expand template is for longer pages that need expansion.
CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs)
- The stub is a page that is extremely short (wider than its height), while the Expand template is for longer pages that need expansion.
- Since then, it has acquired a different use.
- I could easily make some code so you can combine these templates.
- me too! I even added a picture of gobo ;D
- I dunno, I like it how it is.
- Well, maybe it could look like the stub, except be "section stub" or "stub/section" and not add the category.
Adding cat=no or something of the sort
When this template is used, even for a section, it categorizes the whole article as "articles to expand". Is this by design? If not, we should add something like "cat=no" to avoid this. I'd do it, but I want opinions, as you should before editing a template, and I don't trust myself enough to edit a template without breaking it. 
50_scratch_tabs (talk | contribs) 04:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
