From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
| |
|
| Do you think that it should still be defined as a stub? How much info can you have about a small object to not consider it a stub? After adding the cell phone's appearance from other games, do you think that the stub template should be removed? --[[User:Static|Static]] 00:25, 11 September 2010 (CDT) | | Do you think that it should still be defined as a stub? How much info can you have about a small object to not consider it a stub? After adding the cell phone's appearance from other games, do you think that the stub template should be removed? --[[User:Static|Static]] 00:25, 11 September 2010 (CDT) |
| :At the moment, it's just above what is known as a "perfect stub", in that it's got a fair amount of info, but needs just a little more (other game info) to have any tags removed. I'd say you could call it "under construction" until the N64 and KSS info is expanded upon. [[User:Moydow|<font color="green">Moy</font>]][[User talk:Moydow|<font color="orange">dow</font>]] 06:57, 11 September 2010 (CDT)
| |
| ::Opinions are likely to differ on this, but I've never liked stub templates on long and detailed articles that are just missing some specific information. A lot of other wikis have an "expansion" template that is used in these cases, while "stub" is used for articles that really do nothing more than provide a brief outline of the subject. I don't think such a template exists here, though, so in absence of that, [[Template:Construction]] seems the most fitting to me atm. Of course, once the missing information has been added, this wouldn't need a template at all anymore; an article can only be expand-worthy if it can actually be expanded.--[[User:Vellidragon|Vellidragon]] 09:03, 11 September 2010 (CDT)
| |
| :::Template:Construction is the best fit for this simply because it tags the article as above stub, but lower than a "good article." To be honest, I was thinking of removing the stub tags but forgot that template (construction) existed. {{:User:Austin/sig}} 11:36, 11 September 2010 (CDT)
| |
