UESPWiki talk:Stub

Can I get an example?

Could someone show or tell me the difference between a Stub Article and a Non-Stub Article? I've seen some very nice, detailed pages being 'Stubbed,' and I'm unsure of the difference. --RandomPlayer268 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Some pages can have a lot of detail without all desired detail. Astrid is a stub page, despite having a decent amount of work on it. Compare it to this page--all her dialogue, schedule, etc. isn't quite there yet, whereas Adamus' info is complete. Generally a non-stub NPC article will have the detail that is listed at the top of this page in bold, above the table of contents.

For quest pages, The Jagged Crown is pretty complete. It mentions NPC actions, notable (but not all) loot in an area, puzzle solutions, what enemies and how many, etc. I can't find any particular quest pages that need a lot of expansion, but generally they don't give full details as to how to complete a quest or any surprises you may find along the way.

If you see an article with the stub tag but think it's detailed enough to not be a stub, you can mention it on the talk page if you're unsure or remove the template yourself. I don't think that there are official guidelines on this wiki to determining what's a stub and what's not, but if there's little to no more information to add, it's probably complete. --Velyanthe^{►Talk►Email} 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This page is an NPC stub. This page is not. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With a lot of Skyrim info still being incomplete, the line can be kind of blurry because people are often leaving articles stubbed if there's still any kind of missing information such as NPC statistics, place details, a complete (or at least more detailed) walkthrough, etc., even if they're fairly lengthy and detailed otherwise (e.g., The Battle for Fort Dunstad). Normally the line is a little more clear-cut than that, but with a lot of work still to be done in Skyrim space, I think it's a question of "better safe than sorry". On the opposite side of the fence, an article that's small but is as complete as it's ever likely to get can be de-stubbed, even if it's only a couple of sentences (e.g., Treva River).

Generally speaking, if an article has good, detailed information in every section and no {{huh}} tags, normally displayed as (?)], anywhere in its information block, you can de-stub it (e.g., Babette). If anybody objects, they'll just put it back. Also, in cases like The Battle for Fort Dunstad that I mentioned above, if there's only one specific section that needs work, you can optionally move the stub to that section and add |section to the end of it ({{Stub|Quest|section}}), though that's not a big issue. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I have a thorough understanding of Stubs. Thank you for the swift replies :D. --RandomPlayer268 21:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested change to Stub format

Discussion moved to Template_talk:Stub#Suggested change to Stub format

why placement at the bottom?

Why is the standard to place the templates at the bottom? would it not make more sense to place these at the top so people can see it right away rather than when they scroll down? sometimes articles look complete from the top but are shallow. I believe it can be more lucrative if the template standard is place at the top.Feel free to contact me about this TheSeldomConsitentEditor (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a stylistic choice in line with WP:STUBSPACING and Wikipedia's manual of style. —⁠Legoless (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)