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 articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Template:Law-stubispermanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.
Converting PNG to SVG is somewhat controversial (as detailed by the big warning on that page saying 'requests have been suspended...'); obviously the image will be changed if the original's deleted or about to be deleted at Commons, but apart from that consensus on the template talk page (i.e. here) would be useful. Nobody's opposed this yet, and I don't really care, but I'll leave this request up in case someone disagrees. --ais523 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
My general philosophy is that we should change them. Whether the PNGs are deleted from commons is a separate issue. The complaints at commons seem to be about transient technical issues with IE6 that will linger forever if we let them. So I changed this image. Of course it can be undone if there is a good reason, but the reasons on commons aren't convincing to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]