Wikipedia talk:Stub

In the list of chromosome-specific gene stub templates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gene_stubs), I'm seeing a chromosome-specific template for every chromosome except Y-chromosome. Is that because there are no Y-chromosome stubs, or because no template been made? If the latter, could we make one? (And where is the best page for suggesting/discussing this?) BetsyRogers (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to this type of stub template. For example, the chromosome-specific template for chromosome 18 stubs is (displayed below):

This article on a gene on human chromosome 18 is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e

BetsyRogers (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types#No stub template for y-chromosome genes?; please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. BetsyRogers (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@BetsyRogers: I mean that you asked basically the same question in two different places, which goes against WP:MULTI; and that I answered the one that you posted first. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty accustomed to seeing the generic stub tag at the top of a stub article. But for the subject-specific stub tag, I'm mostly seeing them at the bottom of the page, or as a hidden category. Is there a particular reason for this difference? BetsyRogers (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@BetsyRogers: Whether it's {{stub}} or something more specific, stub tags always go at the bottom, after the categories. This is per the stub template documentation, MOS:ORDER and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub sorting methods. Where are you seeing them placed at the top?

As for hidden categories, all stub tags should put the articles into the hidden Category:All stub articles but only {{stub}} should put articles into the hidden Category:Stubs. No other stub cats should be hidden categories: where are you seeing these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember which articles but there have been a lot, so much that I thought the "stub" note/box usually gets put at the top. I've never marked anything a stub so I never investigated further, but I didn't realize until recently that they're also (& apparently more often) being placed at the bottom of the page. BetsyRogers (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that gremolata is in Italian cuisine stubs, but not Italian cuisine. Looking into some other stubs in the category, I found some were in both categories, and some were only in the stub category. What is the preferred practice?

An even better example of the inconsistency is orzo, which is filed under both Greek cuisine and Greek cuisine stubs, but only Italian cuisine stubs, and not Italian cuisine. Neonshuffle (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Neonshuffle: A stub category is intended to be temporary; once the article is sufficiently expanded, the stub template will be removed, so the article drops out of the stub category. Long before that point, it should already have been placed in the "main" category, or one of the subcats of the "main" cat. In the specific case of gremolata, this is in Category:Italian sauces, which is a sub-category of Category:Italian cuisine, so it does not need to be in Italian cuisine as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you! That makes sense.

In the case of orzo, the categories are

• Types of pasta
• Greek cuisine
• Middle Eastern cuisine
• Pasta stubs
• Italian cuisine stubs
• Greek cuisine stubs

Should it also be in the Italian cuisine category or is that sufficient? There isn't really a sub-category under Italian cuisine that fits (there's Italian pasta dishes, but it's not really a dish, just the pasta itself). Neonshuffle (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

There have been at least 15 instances of vandalism in the last couple of weeks, of the same type (insertion of a youtube link). It's great that editors have been reverting it as quickly as they have, but can we protect this page at least temporarily? Her Pegship (?) 15:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The same person appears to have been creating multiple accounts and then spamming many pages. Protecting all of those pages probably won't stop them, they'll just move on to other pages. My threshold for protecting pages is a bit higher than some admins, so I'll pass on blocking for now. Donald Albury 17:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Wondering if "semi-protection" or "pending changes" might be helpful here? Answering above because this topic is on my Watchlist, and have been doing assessments for a long time. Just throwing these suggestions although I am not familiar with either option. Further discussion welcome. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, please don't discuss this. There is nothing more useful than revert, block, ignore. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

See also User talk:Pppery#Your protection of File:Question book-new.svg. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

From where is this number being sourced? Because looking at this page (Category:All stub articles), it seems like it is only 32.3 percent of Wikipedia's articles being stubs, far less compared to this article's claim. PicoMath (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@PicoMath, it's from this sample set of 10,000 articles, plus Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Statistics (latest numbers: 3,999,851 out of 8,216,327 assessed articles are Stub-class, which is 48.68%). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that a lot of articles assessed as Stub don't have stub tags which would place them into that category. I have created a database report that can be set up for any WikiProject to show a list of stub-assessed articles without any stub tags. As an example, WikiProject Kentucky has over 1,600 stub articles without stub tags. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If someone wanted to create that for another WikiProject, it looks like they need to copy/paste the {{Database report}} template (something like 15 to 20 lines long) to a new page, and then change the group's name from United States/WikiProject Kentucky to whatever their group's name/code is. The bot should update the page the next day (or they can "Update the table now"). Is anything else required? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That would work fine in most cases. There are some projects split into using two codes, but it's unlikely you would run into those. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, all. I cannot locate this question in the Archives - but maybe it's my perennial absent-mindedness. Are references included in the word count? -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:WORDCOUNT talks about readable prose, not including wiki markup. I use Wikipedia:Prosesize, which only counts prose in regular text, but not tables, imbedded lists. See also sections, extended notes or references. Donald Albury 17:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. This makes clear that references are not supposed to be included in the word count. -The Gnome (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen an editor say that they include citations as "words", but it's important to remember that these are all approximate rules of thumb. 225 words with two ==sections== and an infobox can be correctly assessed as a non-stub, and 275 words without any sections can correctly be assessed as being a stub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)