Wikipedia talk:Stub

See also: Wikipedia talk:Find or fix a stub for older discussion.

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)

@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)

Statistics

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)

stub articles

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)

Replace double-blank-line method with CSS

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)