Query - does this page serve any useful purpose now that anybody can find every stub in the wikipedia just by clicking on the menu? Doesn't this just maybe keep pages from being 'orphaned' when they otherwise would be? Maybe it's time to rewrite it and to remove the list of stubs and to just leave advice on how to extend them? KJ 05:00 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)
The list of stub articles is quite out of date. Over 50 of the articles there are over 300 words or so, and cannot really be described as stubs any more.
Now that we have the short articles special page, do we still need this list, or could we consider doing away with it altogether? Enchanter
I recently came to a conclusion that many longer articles taken from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica could also be considered stubs, since they are rarely updated. AdSR
A HORROR FILM HEARD THAT IS IN THE MAKING. FROM A UP COMING TRANS STAR.
A HORROR FILM HEARD THAT IS IN THE MAKING. FROM A UP COMING TRANS STAR.
Moved from Wikipedia :
A lot of really small articles are being created. These sub-500 bytes stubs are very poor, no encylopedia topic can be adequately covered in 500 bytes. I feel it would be better not to have them and prevent such articles being created. I propose a change to the code so that non-redirects under 500 bytes cannot be saved, preventing this rubbish from cluttering up Wikipedia. If people are prepared to write an article they should be prepared to write more than a sentence -- ²¹² 09:23, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I propose deleting the contents of this page and replacing it with a link to what links here. There are lots of stub that have the stub notice but are not listed. That way, if someone de-stubifies something, it is automatically taken off the list, and it saves you having to list it here in the first place.
Any objections? Angela 00:15, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
To find a stub, use the following link to see what links to this page:
If you would rather look at a shorter list, see what links to these redirect pages;
When is a stub no longer a stub? And who can remove the stub note? See Irish literature for an example. I guess everyone but me knows the answers. Bmills 17:11, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Personally, I think anything which helps improve Wikipedia incrementally is acceptable, and that includes adding stubs where there previously was no entry. Hopefully, in the future, some other contributor, or the same person, would extend the stub. And besides, what's the point of discouraging people from making tiny incremental contributions? That would just slow down the growth of Wikipedia. Phys 15:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Does whatever article [that] has {{msg:stub}} automatically link to Template:stub? In such a case, the line about full-text search is redundant and should be removed. Also, full-text search is almost always disabled, so it is hardly useful. -- Paddu 14:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A few days ago, I started indexing
Pokémon Stubs. I decided to add a link to that page here and noticed that there's also
Tolkien Stubs. Should there be more list of topic-specific stubs?
--
Fern 18:41, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Where does the word "stub" come from? Who used it first? 82.83.34.129 22:14, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean at Wikipedia? Otherwise, "stub" is a valid english word. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stub
A new type of stub has been created: it's called a substub. Substubs are like regular stubs, only even smaller. You can read more about the difference between stubs and substubs here, or view examples of stubs vs. substubs. There is also a new substub template message; the new message is meant to replace the normal stub message, but only where, of course, an article is a substub instead of a stub. The new message looks like
The original author's transclusion here of Template:substub (his markup reading
has now been disabled by me) is removed since (surely contrary to his intent) it has become misleading, and also since it was falsely labeling this page as a substub. The content that his transclusion originally produced was
(indentation but not italics added by Jerzy (t)); he may or not have realized that, due to an edit 40 minutes earlier, he was putting this talk page into Category:Substubs. At any future time, the then current result of using the markup he refers to may be seen at Template:substub. At this writing, that result reads
and includes a graphic of a jigsaw-puzzle piece bearing a "W". -- Jerzy (t) 17:23, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
You can use this new message by either replacing {{stub}} with {{substub}} in cases when a stub is more accurately described as a substub, or simply inserting {{substub}} at the bottom of an article. Many substubs are automatically listed on
Wikipedia:Shortpages. You can discuss this new type of stub here, on the
template message's talk page, or, preferably, on the
substub talk page itself. --
Mike Storm 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) The immediately preceding contribution has been modified by me, as explained within the modified text. I have consequently struck thru the original contributor's signature, to avoid my creating a forged contribution. My insertion is a single italicized and signed block of text. --
Jerzy
(t) 17:23, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
I've placed a blurb at the top of the Find or fix a stub article directing readers to Stub (disambiguation) for... well, you know. I did this mainly because some people are trying to link to stub in different contexts (for example, in Computer network—which needs work, BTW!), presumably thinking that it will be a general-purpose article about stubs or a disambig page. Of course, those links are redirected to this "project page" on stub articles. I've changed the stub links on the a few regular articles (not including Talk and User pages). See also Talk:Stub (disambiguation) for a similar message from me, and Wikipedia:List of stubs without msg to find other pages that need fixes related to "stub" linking. - dcljr 06:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the fact that I added whole bunch of new stub categories? Do you think it's a bad idea? User:Anthony DiPierro has told me that it is against the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references policy... but wouldn't this mean so is bio-stub and substub? -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see someone has added an instruction to put the stub message "before the See also and the External links sections". I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, because that means it will fall right in the middle of the article (given that a stub will, by definition, not have very much before this point). Personally, I prefer the stub message to be right at the bottom, well away from the article text; but maybe their has been a discussion elsewhere on this...? - IMSoP 15:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I oppose this. It is contrary to the overwhelming practice, which puts the stubnote at the end, which is logical as it refers to the entire article, and the links are part of the article proper, whereas a stubnote is a kind of meta-message. The spacing problem is something for the developers to fix. Gzornenplatz 05:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with the people who say that "See also" is part of the article proper, and that the stub mention should be after those.
So, is there going to be a decision at all about where the stub must be? Oleg Alexandrov 23:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is described as "A stub is a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less. Most stubs fail to cover all but the most trivial subjects completely. However, this does not mean the stub is not a legitimate article—it just needs to be expanded."
Requests for expansion is described as "Almost every article in Wikipedia could do with some expansion. This page is for listing those stubs, substubs and other articles that have decent information, but that you find embarrassingly short or insufficient for an encyclopedia of the stature to which Wikipedia aspires."
It appears that these two pages are doing the same job. They should be merged, yes? (Also posted to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_expansion) JesseW 22:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For example: I was looking at the article for Ben & Jerry's, which referred me to the article on Jerry Greenfield. That article is only a couple of sentences, and is marked as a stub. Is there any reason to expand it? There is a bio on the companies website that tells where he grew up, etc. but, there is really nothing noteworthy about him, except that he was a co-founder of the ice cream company.
So my question is: Should this be just a regular article, (that is very short)? Is there any reason to have it marked "stub"?
Alternative responses could be that the article should be deleted, or that all bio's should tell where the person grew up, and what college he or she attended, etc.
Mpearl 03:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As a creator of many stubs, and an expander/fixer of many others, I would like some guidelines. Is a biographic stub about a 19th century historical figure a history stub or a biography stub? Same question with musicians and sports figures – are bio-stubs about them bio-stubs, or music and sports stubs? Rlquall 14:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Are multiple stubs ok? I'm stubbing Saint Sergius twice. -- Sy / (talk) 01:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What if I start writing a long article, divide it into sections, and each section is just a stub of what it should be? I think the article should be considered a stub. - Lev 06:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think this stub discussion should mention the possiblity of marking "move to Wiktionary" I reckon the root cause of 20% of stubs is that they are definitions not articles-- BozMo |talk 16:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What is really the threshold for a stub article? Two paragraphs, three, or is it really just the amount of content and the possibility of serious expansion? E=MC^2 T@lk 16:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Find or fix a stub/Work those concerned my find my certification and analysis, aimed at verifying that my repair of the "doubling" of this page caused no loss of contributions.
What happened to the help page for stubs? It listed how to put a certain stub on that certain page. If anyone knows how to get the page back please let me know. -- Contrib 18:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Currently, one of the N. Macedonia stub reads as "This article about a politician of the Republic of Macedonia is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", and I suspect other stubs related to N. Macedonian people, buildings, or other things are still referred to as the Republic of Macedonia instead of North Macedonia. Fix? Justin J. Liu (Dylan Smithson) ( talk) 15:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Query - does this page serve any useful purpose now that anybody can find every stub in the wikipedia just by clicking on the menu? Doesn't this just maybe keep pages from being 'orphaned' when they otherwise would be? Maybe it's time to rewrite it and to remove the list of stubs and to just leave advice on how to extend them? KJ 05:00 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)
The list of stub articles is quite out of date. Over 50 of the articles there are over 300 words or so, and cannot really be described as stubs any more.
Now that we have the short articles special page, do we still need this list, or could we consider doing away with it altogether? Enchanter
I recently came to a conclusion that many longer articles taken from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica could also be considered stubs, since they are rarely updated. AdSR
A HORROR FILM HEARD THAT IS IN THE MAKING. FROM A UP COMING TRANS STAR.
A HORROR FILM HEARD THAT IS IN THE MAKING. FROM A UP COMING TRANS STAR.
Moved from Wikipedia :
A lot of really small articles are being created. These sub-500 bytes stubs are very poor, no encylopedia topic can be adequately covered in 500 bytes. I feel it would be better not to have them and prevent such articles being created. I propose a change to the code so that non-redirects under 500 bytes cannot be saved, preventing this rubbish from cluttering up Wikipedia. If people are prepared to write an article they should be prepared to write more than a sentence -- ²¹² 09:23, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I propose deleting the contents of this page and replacing it with a link to what links here. There are lots of stub that have the stub notice but are not listed. That way, if someone de-stubifies something, it is automatically taken off the list, and it saves you having to list it here in the first place.
Any objections? Angela 00:15, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
To find a stub, use the following link to see what links to this page:
If you would rather look at a shorter list, see what links to these redirect pages;
When is a stub no longer a stub? And who can remove the stub note? See Irish literature for an example. I guess everyone but me knows the answers. Bmills 17:11, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Personally, I think anything which helps improve Wikipedia incrementally is acceptable, and that includes adding stubs where there previously was no entry. Hopefully, in the future, some other contributor, or the same person, would extend the stub. And besides, what's the point of discouraging people from making tiny incremental contributions? That would just slow down the growth of Wikipedia. Phys 15:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Does whatever article [that] has {{msg:stub}} automatically link to Template:stub? In such a case, the line about full-text search is redundant and should be removed. Also, full-text search is almost always disabled, so it is hardly useful. -- Paddu 14:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A few days ago, I started indexing
Pokémon Stubs. I decided to add a link to that page here and noticed that there's also
Tolkien Stubs. Should there be more list of topic-specific stubs?
--
Fern 18:41, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Where does the word "stub" come from? Who used it first? 82.83.34.129 22:14, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean at Wikipedia? Otherwise, "stub" is a valid english word. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stub
A new type of stub has been created: it's called a substub. Substubs are like regular stubs, only even smaller. You can read more about the difference between stubs and substubs here, or view examples of stubs vs. substubs. There is also a new substub template message; the new message is meant to replace the normal stub message, but only where, of course, an article is a substub instead of a stub. The new message looks like
The original author's transclusion here of Template:substub (his markup reading
has now been disabled by me) is removed since (surely contrary to his intent) it has become misleading, and also since it was falsely labeling this page as a substub. The content that his transclusion originally produced was
(indentation but not italics added by Jerzy (t)); he may or not have realized that, due to an edit 40 minutes earlier, he was putting this talk page into Category:Substubs. At any future time, the then current result of using the markup he refers to may be seen at Template:substub. At this writing, that result reads
and includes a graphic of a jigsaw-puzzle piece bearing a "W". -- Jerzy (t) 17:23, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
You can use this new message by either replacing {{stub}} with {{substub}} in cases when a stub is more accurately described as a substub, or simply inserting {{substub}} at the bottom of an article. Many substubs are automatically listed on
Wikipedia:Shortpages. You can discuss this new type of stub here, on the
template message's talk page, or, preferably, on the
substub talk page itself. --
Mike Storm 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) The immediately preceding contribution has been modified by me, as explained within the modified text. I have consequently struck thru the original contributor's signature, to avoid my creating a forged contribution. My insertion is a single italicized and signed block of text. --
Jerzy
(t) 17:23, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
I've placed a blurb at the top of the Find or fix a stub article directing readers to Stub (disambiguation) for... well, you know. I did this mainly because some people are trying to link to stub in different contexts (for example, in Computer network—which needs work, BTW!), presumably thinking that it will be a general-purpose article about stubs or a disambig page. Of course, those links are redirected to this "project page" on stub articles. I've changed the stub links on the a few regular articles (not including Talk and User pages). See also Talk:Stub (disambiguation) for a similar message from me, and Wikipedia:List of stubs without msg to find other pages that need fixes related to "stub" linking. - dcljr 06:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the fact that I added whole bunch of new stub categories? Do you think it's a bad idea? User:Anthony DiPierro has told me that it is against the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references policy... but wouldn't this mean so is bio-stub and substub? -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see someone has added an instruction to put the stub message "before the See also and the External links sections". I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, because that means it will fall right in the middle of the article (given that a stub will, by definition, not have very much before this point). Personally, I prefer the stub message to be right at the bottom, well away from the article text; but maybe their has been a discussion elsewhere on this...? - IMSoP 15:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I oppose this. It is contrary to the overwhelming practice, which puts the stubnote at the end, which is logical as it refers to the entire article, and the links are part of the article proper, whereas a stubnote is a kind of meta-message. The spacing problem is something for the developers to fix. Gzornenplatz 05:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with the people who say that "See also" is part of the article proper, and that the stub mention should be after those.
So, is there going to be a decision at all about where the stub must be? Oleg Alexandrov 23:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is described as "A stub is a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less. Most stubs fail to cover all but the most trivial subjects completely. However, this does not mean the stub is not a legitimate article—it just needs to be expanded."
Requests for expansion is described as "Almost every article in Wikipedia could do with some expansion. This page is for listing those stubs, substubs and other articles that have decent information, but that you find embarrassingly short or insufficient for an encyclopedia of the stature to which Wikipedia aspires."
It appears that these two pages are doing the same job. They should be merged, yes? (Also posted to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_expansion) JesseW 22:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For example: I was looking at the article for Ben & Jerry's, which referred me to the article on Jerry Greenfield. That article is only a couple of sentences, and is marked as a stub. Is there any reason to expand it? There is a bio on the companies website that tells where he grew up, etc. but, there is really nothing noteworthy about him, except that he was a co-founder of the ice cream company.
So my question is: Should this be just a regular article, (that is very short)? Is there any reason to have it marked "stub"?
Alternative responses could be that the article should be deleted, or that all bio's should tell where the person grew up, and what college he or she attended, etc.
Mpearl 03:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As a creator of many stubs, and an expander/fixer of many others, I would like some guidelines. Is a biographic stub about a 19th century historical figure a history stub or a biography stub? Same question with musicians and sports figures – are bio-stubs about them bio-stubs, or music and sports stubs? Rlquall 14:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Are multiple stubs ok? I'm stubbing Saint Sergius twice. -- Sy / (talk) 01:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What if I start writing a long article, divide it into sections, and each section is just a stub of what it should be? I think the article should be considered a stub. - Lev 06:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think this stub discussion should mention the possiblity of marking "move to Wiktionary" I reckon the root cause of 20% of stubs is that they are definitions not articles-- BozMo |talk 16:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What is really the threshold for a stub article? Two paragraphs, three, or is it really just the amount of content and the possibility of serious expansion? E=MC^2 T@lk 16:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Find or fix a stub/Work those concerned my find my certification and analysis, aimed at verifying that my repair of the "doubling" of this page caused no loss of contributions.
What happened to the help page for stubs? It listed how to put a certain stub on that certain page. If anyone knows how to get the page back please let me know. -- Contrib 18:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Currently, one of the N. Macedonia stub reads as "This article about a politician of the Republic of Macedonia is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", and I suspect other stubs related to N. Macedonian people, buildings, or other things are still referred to as the Republic of Macedonia instead of North Macedonia. Fix? Justin J. Liu (Dylan Smithson) ( talk) 15:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)