Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 16

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Stub assessments with ORES. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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 As Taavi and Andrew Gray pointed out, it's a now outdated Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance issue.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)

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 〈genus〉 is a genus of〈clade〉that comprises the following species: 〈list of redlinks〉 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)

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 29 § Wiki:stub until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

@AzseicsoK: WP:WSS/P. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: 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)

@Pegship: 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:

• S1 - the creation of a category for which an approved upmerged template already exists and is now in use on more than 60 articles.

List speedy creation proposals in the same proposal listings as normal stub proposals below.

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: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2023/September#Turkish airline stubs; Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2023/July#Yemen geo stubs; Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/October#Gujranwala District geography stubs; Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/May#More speedy cats; Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/March#Speedy creation cats; Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/February#French dance bio stubs (pt 2) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2022/January#Speedy creation - Danish television stubs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you. I was looking for an example, but not finding any. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added some statistical information about typical stubs. See User talk:BilledMammal/Average articles#c-WhatamIdoing-20240818051500-WhatamIdoing-20240818044000 for some of the background. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A couple of quick numbers:

• 43% have 10 or fewer sentences
• 41% have 250 or fewer words
• 62% have 500 or fewer words

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added a fair amount of new info/sources to an article deemed a 'stub' - how do I know when to remove the stub tag? In my opinion it's worthy to be removed. If someone is responding to these, I can give them the article name and get your opinion. Gregorcollins (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stub#How big is to big? and then use your judgment. Like many of the "rules" in Wikipedia, that guidance is vague, and users have a lot of discretion in deciding when an article is no longer a stub. If it really is too long to be a stub, even if you don't remove the stub notice, someone (or a bot) may come along and remove it. Donald Albury 18:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, @Redrose64 - At section Removing stub status, today I added the following sentence.

"Occasionally, a "Category" is used to indicate a stub article instead of the stub tag, and those are also near the bottom of the page."

And saw the revert explanation: they shouldn't be. Stub categories are not intended for direct use, they should always be via one of the stub templates

And I do agree 100-percent that stubs do not/should not be written as a Category. I was trying to alert other editors of this type of error that I do encounter from time-to-time. Is there a better way of explaining? Or perhaps place the explanation at a different spot in the Stub article? Should those category-stubs always be deleted regardless of the article class assessment?

Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps:

"If you see a stub category directly typed into the list of categories at the end of the page, please replace it with the correct stub template." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing - Thanks. Good wording for action to correct the error (and article remains a Stub-class). Also need a second sentence to explain when doing stub-removal; for example, article is assessed as Start or C-class level. Even though English is my first language, sometimes I confuse myself. Cheers! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeNMLC (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

As currently written, "Until December 2024, it was the standard to leave two blank lines between the first stub template on a page and whatever preceded it. This is now unnecessary, and the extra line should be removed when encountered."

After reading this entry, as far as I can tell, we are no longer utilizing the double space after the last Category entry before the Stub template(s). Does that mean we are still using one space? Or should there be no spaces at all? Would like to clarify here. When viewing/editing, should it look like:

Example one
[[Category:Random category]]
{{Random template}}

Example two
[[Category:Random category]]

{{Random template}}

From what I understand was depreciated
[[Category:Random category]]


{{Random template}}

I thought it should look like example 2, but I've seen some bots running with example 1. I'll hang up and listen. GauchoDude (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@GauchoDude: Your first or second examples work equally well, at least in terms of the output HTML when the page renders. I've seen people argue in favor of the second one to create some visual space between the main body of the article and the stub notice when editing, but I'm not sure there's strong consensus either way. May not matter much. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the quick response. Would be curious to see how many operate in one of the two fashions above. I'm in camp 2 myself. GauchoDude (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been using example two ~Kvng (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As have I. I assumed this was normal/the standard. GauchoDude (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The WP:STUBSPACING section says: Leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it (one blank line leaves the stub category notice butted up against any preceding navigation template; it takes two blank lines in the edited text to produce one blank line in the displayed text). Wouldn't it be better to use CSS? To maintain the current spacing, we could add something like

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

to Template:Asbox/styles.css. I would suggest using 1em instead of 3em, though. Aside from looking better IMO, it would allow us to spot pages using the double-blank-line method easily and correct them. But I'm fine either way.

What do people think of this idea? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We last discussed this over six years ago (or two years ago, the discussion seems to have a span of more than four years) at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Double blank lines, again, and I offered a CSS rule which was somewhat simpler. The discussion also contains some links back to earlier discussions. Other participants included: Donald Albury; Grutness; Jonkerz; Kvng; Lugnuts; Mclay1; PamD; Pbsouthwood; Peter coxhead; SMcCandlish. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Thanks.

The benefit of my CSS rule is that it only applies the margin if the stub template isn't preceded by a paragraph, which prevents extra space being generated if the extra line hasn't been removed yet. Other than that, my CSS accounts for the style element that comes directly above the stub notice, which wasn't a factor in 2016 since TemplateStyles hadn't been introduced yet.

Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious problem. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Without fully understanding the technicality, that sounds good to me. I've always thought it would make more sense for the stub templates to provide any necessary extra spacing. Would this CSS also work if there are zero blank lines before the stub template? Mclay1 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mclay1: Yes, it would. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Switching to CSS seems eminently sensible, because hardcoded double newline always looked nonsensical in source, whereas if it's a CSS property it's presumably tunable by reader (user) preferences. --Joy (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, since we seem to have had at least 8 discussions about this over a period of 17 years, it should be noted that this is a matter where allowing each person to tune it to their preference is of more importance than usual. --Joy (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm definitely on board with this, as long as it gets tested well in various scenarios before wide implementation. If it's all working well, then the double blank lines stuff can be cleaned up by a bot job as part of any general-housekeeping edit the bot makes to a page (shouldn't be done as an edit on its own though, per WP:COSMETICBOT).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm on board with this, with one proviso - I take it this doesn't add blank lines between stub templates on articles where more than one template is in use? If, say, an articles is both a {{Belgium-struct-stub}} and a {{theatre-stub}}? It would still need to work if a stub template follows any other template (such as an infobox) - though theoretically stub templates should only be directly below categories and nothing else... Grutness...wha? 03:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Grutness Correct – it only adds a blank space if the thing above the stub template isn't another stub template. So if you have multiple stub templates one after another, only the first one gets extra space put in above it. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Newbies are often puzzled by the double blank lines and either don't use them in a new article or remove them. This is a much better approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - While I don't understand how CSS works in this context, the description sounds like exactly what we want: whitespace added only when it is not already there. ~Kvng (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: If this is implemented I foresee some massive bot-work removing the current blank lines on articles! Grutness...wha? 02:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Blank lines will not need to be removed, so should only be removed along with necessary/useful edits · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I've made an edit request to add the CSS I suggested above to Template:Asbox/styles.css. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit request above has been implemented on 19 December 2024. Accordingly, the overleaf advice at WP:TAGSTUB about two blank lines ought to be removed. The shortcut WP:STUBSPACING, now unnecessary, should also be removed. I'm not sure whether a mention of the previous advice and this change should be mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the wording; feel free to modify it further if you want. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Your wording looks fine to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please leave WP:STUBSPACING in place for a while – there will be some collateral discussion about this elsewhere — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume that this is so far just in EN? I have no idea what other wikis do about stubs — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 23:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this CSS change is working. Compare Protocol-control information and Managed object. My understanding was that the change would result in the same rendering with or without the extra spacing. ~Kvng (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kvng see this comment and its replies. This seems to be the same issue, and only affects some users (I'm seeing the two pages you linked correctly, as I do the pages mentioned at the above link). Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mr. Starfleet Command, I've checked and on both Firefox (134.0.1) and Chrome (131.0.6778.265) I am seeing more horizontal whitespace above the stub notice on Protocol-control information. This is also the case when I'm logged out (using private mode in the browsers). ~Kvng (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the StubSorter script to use a single blank line. – SD0001 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Regular:

Stations:

This television-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e

This article about a radio station is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e

For stations, you must be specific (e.g.

This article about a radio station in Puerto Rico is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e

)

Other:

This article about or related to tropical cyclones is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e

This article about a writer, poet or playwright is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e

You can add these to an article if you think that it's too short. 2604:B000:A218:FF4:8CCC:E18:F8B3:CC15 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at creating a requested move for WP:Permastub to WP:Very short articles, because the definition of stub it uses conflicts with WP:STUB. For example, something can be a permastub if The article is a finished article, in no need of improvement. but at WP:STUBLENGTH it says While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written.

Before I propose this move, I just want to check I'm not missing anything obvious. I've also left a note at WT:Permastub#Confusing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that changing the name of something that's been used for decades is a bad idea.

@Rollinginhisgrave, what you are missing is: There is no conflict.

Permastub says that some articles are permastubs because they're finished.

Stub says there are some subjects about which very little can be written.

They're both saying the same thing: There is very little to say about some articles/subjects. The end result (if you create separate articles for them) is permastubs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm. It seems very clear that PERMASTUB is defining a stub as an unfinished article, because it's clearly not just saying there are some subjects about which very little can be written, but it's saying that in comparison to While very short articles are very likely to be stubs. If this isn't the intention of the text, that's okay, but I think it should be amended.

As a practical matter, I passed Hazzard Dill at GA on the premise that because it was far from unfinished, it wasn't a stub. The WP:GACR says stubs cannot be GAs. Should this not have passed? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hazzard Dill has 14 sentences, which exceeds my usual rule of thumb for maximum stub size (by 40%). It has 292 words of readable prose, which exceeds a different rule of thumb for maximum stub size (by almost 20%). It has 1,558 characters of readable prose, which (barely) exceeds a third rule of thumb for maximum stub size. There are no size-based rules of thumb by which this article is likely to be a stub. Looking at the (generally less popular/less dispositive) content rules of thumb, such as the "Croughton-London" rule, as a relatively small subject, it is probably also not a stub. Whether you should have passed it as GA would require much more investigation, but it is not a stub, and you should not have failed it on those grounds.

PERMASTUB is not defining "a stub" at all, much less as an unfinished article. Permastub is taking the existing, accepted definition(s) of stub and dividing the broader concept of stub into two categories:

1. Stubs with "no reasonable prospect for expansion", which it labels permastubs
2. Stubs that could be expanded if someone spent some time working on them (which it does not provide a catchy name for).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Very good to know the rules of thumb for stub size. I apologise for an error, I meant to say WP:STUBLENGTH where I said PERMASTUB. That is where the sentence While very short articles are very likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written is. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

So you meant to say that the WP:STUBLENGTH section of WP:Stub "is defining a stub as an unfinished article", and as evidence of this, you quote a sentence that says some finished articles are going to be very short but does not actually say that those finished-but-very-short articles cannot be considered stubs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is necessarily implied that those finished-but-very-short articles cannot be considered stubs. Perhaps to help me see where I'm going wrong, you could tell me if you believe "while" is being used to indicate contrast, and if so, what is being contrasted. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that stubs are defined by their length, not by their completeness. I do not accept the implication that you see that "finished" articles are not stubs, no matter how short. I also suspect that your interpretation of the definition of a stub is not shared by the majority of the community. I am therefore opposed to the name change for the essay that you propose. Donald Albury 14:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I made a comment elsewhere on this and was directed here. Your interpretation and the (to me, expanded on in that other comment) clear meaning of the text at STUBLENGTH seem to be at direct odds with each other. Deferring to your experience, it seems to me that the text should be updated to match yours and the common understanding. Nebman227 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Different people have different ideas of what a stub is.

• For most editors, it's all about the length (number of sentences, words, characters...)
• For some editors, it's all about the completeness of the article. If it's "finished", then it's not a stub.

In borderline cases, it is not unusual for both rules to be applied. For example: "Well, I usually think that 250 words is too big to be a stub. This article has a little bit less than that, but frankly I don't think it could usefully be expanded. So I'll stretch my usual rule of thumb and say it is not a stub. I will take the {{stub}} tag off the article".

Or, alternatively: "This article is a little bit longer than my usual rule of thumb, but it is full of filler words and other meaningless fluff, it doesn't have any ==Sections==, and the subject is so big that it could be turned into a huge article. So I'll stretch my usual rule of thumb and say that it is still a stub. I will leave the {{stub}} tag on the article".

The approach recommended by WP:STUB is more like "Use your judgment" than "Follow these exact rules". Multiple factors can and should be considered. The "While" statement is saying "You know, 'while' you might be inclined to send a bot around that counts words or sentences, please don't; please consider more than just raw word counts in deciding whether the article should have a {{stub}} tag."

Here is something you may not have realized: This page is about the {{stub}} tags. It is not about the Wikipedia:Content assessment grading scheme devised by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (the quality ratings on the talk page, linked to WikiProjects). The purpose of this system is to direct editors' attention to fairly narrow subjects (e.g., Roman Catholic bishops in Indonesia, not WP:CATHOLIC or WP:INDONESIA articles in general) for the purpose of article expansion. Therefore, if you see an article that is not a good candidate for expansion, it's better to err on the side of removing the {{stub}} tag, and if you see an article that is a great candidate for expansion, it's better to leave the stub tag in place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

First, although the lines are blury, essays do not generally have have the same force as guidelines, which do not generally have the same force as policies. Moreover, with a few exceptions such copyright violations, libel, and biographies of living persons, even policies are supposed to reflect the usual practices of the community, and anything written down that is not congruent with those practices is subject to revision to match actual practice. I.e., an essay does not govern what we do unless a consensus of the community agrees with it. Donald Albury 16:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly where I was coming from. You described an understanding, which I defer to as you are a much more experienced editor than I, that was different from the guideline, so the logical thing seemed to be to update the guideline text. However, if your opinion on it is not as strong a community consensus as I assumed, based on WhatamIdoing is saying, then that's moot. Nebman227 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The "rule-making" part of this page is Wikipedia:Stub#Creating stub types. This page exists because we have, and occasionally need to enforce, rules discouraging editors from boldly creating yet more {{stub}} tags. As in, there are already ~40,000 (forty thousand!) different {{stub}} tags, and we don't really need any more, and we especially don't need someone to decide that their way of "helping" Wikipedia will be to create a fully elaborated set of every possible combination of century–country–profession stub tags. We've already got a different stub tag for each 100 stubs. We don't need a custom stub tag for every 10 stubs, or each individual stub article.

The stuff about whether this article is/isn't a proper {{stub}} is ...just not that important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)