Wikipedia talk:Stub

Section on stub icons out of date.
This was originally raised at WP:VPI, see the discussion there for context. I think it's time to remove the bit about stub icons being "discouraged". As and  pointed out, it's a now outdated Don't worry about performance issue. Furthermore, it's completely out of sync with reality- almost all stub templates have associated stub "icons". In short, I propose removing the following line:

Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would keep the second half - the free image & 40px requirements are I think generally accepted (plus are common sense). Something like An image used as a stub template icon must be public domain or have a free license—fair use images must not be used in templates. Stub icons should be small, preferably no more than about 40px in size., perhaps? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. I agree with this kind of phrasing. cc Taavi and EEng who participated in the VPI but not here SWinxy (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are permanent stubs, with no potential to become a full article, acceptable?
I feel like this has been at the root of a lot of recent disputes about notability, article creation, article deletion, and stub, so it feels worth considering whether we can tackle the question directly and (eventually, not necessarily here) reach a consensus on this. My interpretation of policy has always been that a stub's sole purpose is to serve as a temporary, incomplete state which must (notionally) eventually be filled out into a complete article - stubs with no potential to ever become a complete article (using current existing coverage, not WP:CRYSTALBALL possibilities of future coverage) are undesirable, and intentionally creating them is not proper and should be discouraged. Of course, in practice since someone has to do the work to fill out a stub, it can remain in that state indefinitely, just like unexceptional and uncontroversial things can remain uncited indefinitely or other incomplete things can linger until someone has the time to fix or complete them; but it's always supposed to be possible to complete it - the sources must exist somewhere, even if we don't have them yet. A stub is like an uncited paragraph - it can linger until someone has time to fill it out, but the presumption is that the sources exist, and if they don't then it shouldn't have been created. Is this how most people see stubs, and should we add guidelines or even policies somewhere indicating that "permastubs" with no potential to become a full article to be avoided? --Aquillion (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's an inherent problem with stubs. If a stub has no hope of being expanded, that shouldn't weigh in to a deletion discussion, notability should. The one kind of stub I believe should be deleted (regardless of notability) are ones that provide the same information as any directory or database. The all-too-common  is a sad example of this problem. These articles can rarely be expanded, and contain only lists of species redlinks, with maybe one actually notable species. Permastubs, in my view, aren't generally a problem, unless they regurgitate database-style information like the example above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of GBIF. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Wiki:stub" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki:stub&redirect=no Wiki:stub] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow •  talk  00:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Upmerging stub type to regular stub type?
I've been working with a stub type that upmerges. There are about 120 stubs, and I thought of making it stand alone as a stub type that is a subcategory. Do I need to propose that somewhere and get permission/consensus? And is there anything I need to know beyond editing the template? Uporządnicki (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:WSS/P. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I THINK I see the answer there about permission/consensus (although it seems a bit ambiguous).  And it's occurred to me, too, that what I need to do in addition to--indeed, BEFORE--editing the stub template is to create the stub category page. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the template and cat were both approved back in November 2020, its creation isn't a problem, and the formatting looks fine. I'm just curious as to what part of the permission/consensus description seems ambiguous? Her Pegship (?) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * YOUR PEGSHIP! I'm delighted you chimed in. Since you helped me with some stub category matters before--more than once--I'd thought of asking you directly.  But then I decided that wouldn't exactly be cricket.
 * It seems incredibly unlikely that you're talking about the situation I'm raising here; it would take copious research, and some VERY lucky guesswork for you to find that out. It's NOT the one you helped me set up a few years ago.  I'll fill you in on the details on your talk page, but I'll answer your question about the ambiguity (at least to me) here.
 * There's a stub template that, right now, upmerges to a higher category stub. It's well on time to give that upmerged stub its own category.  Here's the confusion.  On the link User:Redrose64 provided, it says:

"DO NOT place a proposal here for any stub type which has already been created and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. The proposal page is only for stub types that have not yet been created, . .."


 * But then, under the Speedy Creation heading, it says:

"A stub type may be proposed for "speedy creation" if it meets one of the following criteria: List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below."
 * S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.


 * So, it looks to me as if I am supposed to propose it, as a Speedy Creation (it WILL need creation of a stub category PAGE). If that's correct, I'm wondering how I do that as a Speedy Creation.  How do I mark it, and then how long do I wait? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I think you're thinking about that Pyrausta moth we discussed on your talk page recently. No, I'm done with that, and I've moved on to Beetles. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I talked too much about my questions; I got some comments, but no specific answers There's a stub category that, right now, upmerges to a parent category.  I want to remove the upmerge, and have that stub category stand on its own.
 * Do I need to propose that on the page for proposing stub categories?
 * And if so, how do I mark it as Speedy? Uporządnicki (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As you noted above, WP:WSS/P says List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below, so put it under the "NEW PROPOSALS" subheading. There is no special way of marking it as speedy, just mention it either in the heading or in the text. See for example: WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2023/September; WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2023/July; WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/October; WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/May; WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/March; WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/February and WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/January. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was looking for an example, but not finding any. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)