Template talk:Article stub box

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Stub sorting This template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Stub sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Stub sortingTemplate:WikiProject Stub sortingStub sorting

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

@Arbitrarily0 it looks like something broke here, I happened to notice that the template {{ZagrebCity-geo-stub}} started rendering the error:

Page Template:Asbox/styles.css has no content.

Please fix or revert, this is very visible. --Joy (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted my move of Template:Asbox/styles.css. Is that what the problem was? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, it looks like its fixed now. The problem was either that .css pages can't be redirected, or if they can I don't know how. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrarily0 See below. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, regardind Nahian's comment below: Is further action needed, since I've already reverted the move of Template:Article stub box/styles.css? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrarily0 It all works at present, but it may be possible to change the name of the template if my comment below is correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, replace Template:Asbox/styles.css with Template:Article stub box/styles.css in this module. VengeanceTalk 11:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Template:Asbox/styles.css was moved to Template:Article stub box/styles.css, the breakage was, as far as I can tell, because Module:Article stub box references 'Asbox/styles.css' at line 14, but there was no redirect. The module also references 'Template:Asbox' at line 13, but Template:Asbox is a redirect, and it seems to be ok. So perhaps if the move left a redirect, and then the module was updated, it would all work? Or maybe .css pages can't be redirected? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Peter coxhead. Yes, I'm just not sure if .css pages can be redirected. Of course, we could do a "manual redirect" by moving the content of Asbox/styles.css to the new title (and changing its referent in Module:Article stub box accordingly). But if it's okay with you, let's wait for someone else's opinion here, just to avoid the risking of things breaking again. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 I definitely agree to wait! But I do think that duplicating the content to the new title and then updating the module should work. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CSS pages can be redirected, but the technique is completely different. You would use the @import rule. But please do not carry out cut-and-paste moves, even for CSS pages, see WP:CUTPASTE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted this. Job queue will take a few days for all of this to be corrected, but issues go away on (null) edit. While it is possible to futz with where a TemplateStyles page is by moving it by hand and then doing a WP:History merge, I have rarely if ever had issues with just moving them and making sure the relevant invoking module/template is correct. Anyway, the TemplateStyles page should have been living under the module name, so I also corrected the final location. Izno (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Izno! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead and Arbitrarily0: The entire asbox functionality seems to be broken now; no thumbnail images, no subcategories, just the same message for every template. Could this be the result of the changes above? — The Anome (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It must be because of the move. Looking into it now. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 looks like this update of top args in the module was also necessary. I tagged some more instances with comments in case they get normalized later. --Joy (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it, Joy (edit conflict!). Great work. I suspect it is all working properly now. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that seems to have fixed it. — The Anome (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it excessive? See, e.g., Dynamics_(mechanics)#See_also. fgnievinski (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: This is Template talk:Article stub box#CSS edit request following on from Wikipedia talk:Stub#Replace double-blank-line method with CSS. You get the same gap whether you precede the stub template with one, two or three blank lines - two was the recommendation at WP:STUBSPACING until a couple of months ago. But also per WP:STUBSPACING, the tag is in the wrong place anyway, which I have fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointers. Above it was said:

the space now above the template is IMHO generally excessive to the need

I'm inclined to agree with you that the current spacing is somewhat excessive, but a separate discussion would be needed to form consensus to change that.

With that, it's three people pointing out the CSS spacing is excessive: me, @docwatson42, and @User:Mr. Starfleet Command. I suspect the issue arose because stub templates were not always transcluded preceded by two blank lines. fgnievinski (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the spacing is excessive. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The spaciing is the same as it had been before, provided that you had followed the placement guidelines and used two blank lines between the categories and the stub template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it's still perceived as excessive. Can we at least agree on how many complaints it's necessary to action a change? Ten people would seem a reasonable number. fgnievinski (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Permalink/1308943116 for example. When the item immediately preceding the categories is the {{Coord}} template, the extra vertical spacing does not show. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CSS that adds the vertical spacing is set up so it doesn't apply if the stub box is immediately preceded by an HTML <p> element (paragraph), so that it doesn't produce too much space in cases where the old method is still used (two blank lines before the stub tag, which creates a blank paragraph). Apparently, the {{Coord}} template generates a paragraph.

Depending on how many pages still use the old method, we might be able to remove the :not(p) from the CSS. That would fix cases like these, but would double the space on pages still using the old method. But I have no idea how many pages still need to be fixed in that way. Does anyone else have input on this matter? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A vast majority of pages probably still have the double spaces. This was the first time I noticed one being removed. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]