Module talk:Asbox stubtree Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Asbox_stubtree

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 automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This edit request to Template:Asbox/styles.css has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per consensus here, the following should be added to Template:Asbox/styles.css:

:not(p):not(.asbox) + style + .asbox {
	margin-top: 3em;
}

Once this is added, we can remove (or revise) the line about leaving two blank lines before stub templates from WP:STUBSPACING.

Apologies if I'm doing this wrong, this is the first time I've made an edit request.

Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Starfleet Command: happy to implement the consensus. Do you have any testcases to show it works as intended in all situations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ I have tested it out in my personal CSS, and it seems to work good there. How would I go about creating a testcase? Or is testing it in my personal CSS good enough? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the sandbox, so it can be tested with Template:Asbox/sandbox. The usual place for test cases would be Template:Asbox/testcases if that works? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ OK, I've added test cases at Template:Asbox/testcases#Top-margin testing. I also made a slight tweak to the CSS.

The only issue I see is if a stub template directly follows a paragraph, without a navbox, list, or anything else between, in which case no extra margin is applied. The only way I can think of to fix this would be to replace :not(p) with :not(p:has(> br)), but TemplateStyles doesn't support :has(), so this CSS would then have to be added to MediaWiki:Common.css or somewhere similar, which is not ideal to say the least.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen a stub template directly preceded by a paragraph; does that happen much? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Not to mention, :has() has only been fully supported by all major browsers since 2023, so probably shouldn't be used just yet.) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will deploy this later today unless someone gets there before me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely forgot about this. Now done. Please update the documentation accordingly. Thanks for your work on this! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the above mean that there are now two carriage returns about stub templates? I'm seeing extra space above the {{Hawaii-stub}}, as in Halawa Correctional Facility. (I'm viewing it via Firefox running under macOS on a desktop using Vector legacy.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As well as in Western Regional Climate Center. I realize that some stub templates' images need more space, but many do not, and the space now above the template is IMHO generally excessive to the need. —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or is there now a way to adjust the amount of space a stub template generates? —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Starfleet Command, can you respond? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: I've checked both the pages that you pointed out, and it appears that the margin generated above the stub templates accounts for the same amount of space as would be generated if two blank lines were employed. Judging by the page history, these two pages did not employ the two-blank-line-method even before the change to WP:STUBSPACING, so yes, the spacing in these cases is larger than it was before, but is now consistent in appearance with the bulk of Wikipedia stubs, and with the purpose of the old guideline: to separate the stub notice from the rest of the article by about that much space.

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. A better option (in my opinion) would be to modify the spacing in your personal CSS, with something like this:

:not(p):not(.asbox) + style + .asbox,
:not(p):not(.asbox) + link + .asbox {
	margin-top: 1em;
}

That would reduce the spacing by a factor of three, as it has a spacing of 3em by default. You can adjust 1em up or down in line with your preference.

Hope this answers your questions, feel free to respond if it doesn't or if you have other thoughts :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to alter the appearance too much, so that I can see what other users see while I'm editing. Thank you, however.

I came back to point out that the change makes two sequential stub templates look a bit silly, as in Bai Hu Tong. —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: The CSS is crafted to avoid that issue, and it's working for me. However, now that I think about it, :not() is only fully supported in Firefox 84 (December 2020) and above, so depending on the last time your browser was updated, that functionality might be broken for you. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I'm using the latest version of iOS Safari (18.2.1), as I only have my phone with me. —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: Huh, according to https://caniuse.com/not, that version supports it. I'm afraid stumped. I'll let you know if I think of something, though. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Bai Hu Tong is looking okay on my browser (Edge) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks okay in desktop mode in mine—just not in mobile. —DocWatson42 (talk)< DocWatson42 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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]