Template talk:Stub

=Replace image in stub templates?= I suggest changing the image in the stub links to a more generic metaphor. I have designed an image for this and it is located at Image:Puzzlepiece.jpg. Examples

 32 pixels sq.   64 pixels sq.   128 pixels sq. 
 * I like that. What do other people think? --GreenReaper(talk) 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What size do you think I should use per default? -- DeVandalizer 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should use 32x32. I know it looks nicer if bigger, but it's meant to be an icon, not to occupy excessive space. Perhaps display it in the full-size version on the stub categories? --GreenReaper(talk) 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'll make those changes. -- DeVandalizer 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooo.. I'm liking this graphic. But do PNG please! :) Even on the small 32x32 (which I also think is best) you can see artifacts. -Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried using png orginally but it resulted in a larger file size with lower quality (for me). If you can compress it better please do so :) If you need a lossless file please email me by my user page and I can send you the original. -- DeVandalizer 01:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a smaller png version (32x32px) to Image:Puzzlepiece32.png. If you can tweak it to make it better please upload a new version. -- DeVandalizer 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ack, it looks like I'll have to do the 32px one manually as there's too much high-frequency detail to reduce automatically (hence the artifacts)... I'm on it now -- DeVandalizer 01:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest changing wording
Could we change the wording of the stub tags to emphasize. Something like: "This stub could be expanded. You can help by editing it." --Rat 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There's not necessarily anything wrong with the article, it's just shorter than an article about that topic should be
 * 2) You can help by expanding it.
 * "Help expand this stub"? --GreenReaper(talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit...short. --Rat 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concise! What is not communicated with it that would be by a longer phrase? --GreenReaper(talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)