Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stub/Archive 14

999:"Redlinks more informative in some cases". I would thoroughly disagree, especially on stubs with intertranswiki tags. If the articles inform the reader that it is located in .... even that is more informative than nothing at all. Any "empty" stubs I've created have the translation tags in which one can click google translate link and immediately be presented with the information to the reader in english. Sorry Aymatth, but I think your distaste of the shorter stubs is affecting your outlook. A lot of editors are willing to add to an article but unwilling to create it. And if editors hate short stubs in their preferences they can simply programme a minimum KB size. You could simply change it in your preference to avoid clicking on articles and getting the "annoying lack of content". I would agree that one fact and one source bare minimum should be a rule but then this would exclude new articles from newbies who may start notable subjects and have them deleted because they don't know about sourcing. I think you're pretty much wasting your time with this as there is unlikely to be a "rule" which stops them from being created. If just a guideline if merely says "we frown upon this", not as if I wasn't aware of that already!♦ 890:

inhabited named places, or professional sports players, then it should be sufficient (if far from ideal) for a stub to have one reliable source initially. The reason such subjects have been consistently kept in AFDs is that we have found that it is generally possible to find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, although it may require more effort than a quick search for online sources at Google News archive or Google books. I agree with questioning "geographical databases of dubious reliability" since some are plainly full of careless errors, and lack a mechanism for getting errors corrected. Some anonymous person enters a hamlet in a geographic database, from unidentified sources, and there is a "hamlet" at a place where no dwelling ever stood. An Ordnance Survey map in the UK, or a National Geological Survey map in the US have been more carefully vetted than some online map system like Google Maps. I have personally contacted Google Maps with evidence of an error in the name of a street, with no reply and no correction of the error, for instance.

1036:

knowledge on the subject so that they may consider expanding these stubs. However I've been compelled by the lack of share buttons manually to copy stubs' URLs into e-mail messages if I wished to share said stubs. My suggestion is that the stub notices that appear at the end of short articles contain these share buttons and that when a user shares an article with someone through one of these buttons, the message that the recipient receives contains the entire article (if it is short enough) with a direct link to edit the article, or a subsection of it. For example, a button following a stub article may ask, "Do you know someone with knowledge on this topic? Ask them to expand this article!" with the last sentence being a link that pops up a window allowing the user to type in e-mail addresses or to share the article on a social network. I believe that implementing such buttons will encourage common readers to share articles with their knowledged acquaintances more freely, hence encouraging greater participation in the project. Kind regards, Adriaan.

3457:. I think it is far too long to be considered a stub. But most of the content is a list, though the article does not announce itself as a list. I think we need clearer guidance on the issue of prose content as opposed to lists, tables etc. I am a humble stub sorter. I am not competent to pronounce on the quality of botanical articles. But I don't think they should be marked as stubs just because they are largely in list form. The same arguments apply to articles about football teams and the like. They often contain a lot of information in tabular form. That seems much more useful than trying to convey the same information in prose. I think articles should be considered as a whole. Excluding consideration of pictures, tables and the like seems perverse. But there seems to be a common view that in assessing whether an article is a stub only the prose content should be taken into account. Is that the proper policy? 5334:

particular, the 3rd & last example in the 'table'. Second (and the part that really made it confusing to me), you can't follow a colon with a list separated by commas and then continue the sentence after the list is done. If you want to keep the colon, this re-work might be an option: "Per the manual of Style, the stub template is placed at the end of the article so that the stub category will appear after all article content. It should come after: the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags." (Technically still violates my point #1, but I for one don't care if it's stylistically correct as long readers understand it.)

4013:

whether an article is a stub based solely on its length" (it should be said that the argument presented in the guideline is not the argument you made, still it is absurd to extend from "a few paragraphs long" to "impossible" which would imply this is applicable even when there are many tens of paragraphs or an infinite number of paragraphs). We are interested in reasonable guidelines, and you can always use wordings like "meaningful and relevant content of x number of words" should you so wish to do so, but saying it is "impossible" is just downright ridiculous. Change the wording to something that could be used as a reasonable guideline.

968:, they will find the article on the poet Schlanzk, and will learn something about the village. Now we make a stub that says "Xtrynyr is a community in Ruritania". When the user enters "Xtrynyr" in the search box and presses ENTER, that is all they get. Before, the search results gave some information about Xtrynyr. Now, the reader is stuck in a stub that tells them next to nothing. I am not sure about the wording, but there must be some way to say that a stub is not good if it reduces the amount of information a reader would find on a search result. Thoughts on how stubs increase or reduce the value of Knowledge (XXG) to readers? 5197: 4905: 2806: 850:

encyclopedic appropriateness. A single source to government figures or other reliable source is enough to make it valid, at least as a start. If you genuinely wanted to improve our coverage of the "Global South" then a mention and fact about the places is far far better than if it didn't exist at all. If you still have a problem with that then I suggest you learn to accept it or simply shut up. The web is still in its infancy and more and more sources are becoming available for third world locations and topics all the time. Take the

5921:- I was thinking that, if I were an editor, I might be daunted at the humongous size of stub categories and try to find a smaller category I could whittle away at. (Recently I sorted a bunch of West Bengal geo stubs because the India geo stubs looked overwhelming.) I admit that that's more of a psychological issue than mathematical, but that's how I roll. :D Folks seem to like creating stubs by the thousands rather than expanding those we have; I'm just wondering if splitting stub categories would make them more bite-sized. 4061:

suggests that what's written may be "irrelevant and incomprehensible" as you argued, simply that a lot more could be written). What kind of illogical argument is that? I would have written it very differently even if I want to argue that the should be no set size (which I don't), for example: "It is difficult to set a precise limit on size as even prose of a few paragraphs long may not adequately introduce basic information on a subject about which a lot more could be written..."

5087: 745: 31: 1015:'s idea of adding a pointer to inbound link articles into the stub template (really just the toolbox "what links here", but more visible). That should be raised on the template talk page. I can't see a downside. I still think the guideline, and it is just a guideline, not the LAW, may well say "in general, we discourage..." and describe things like no useful information, no sources, less information than exists elsewhere etc. 4942:

does not state why we need two blank lines at the end of the article before the template. I have never seen this enforced by any other editor, and honestly, it seems most editors don't care about it (quite appropriately, if I say so myself). I see it's been discussed here to death. There really needs to be consensus on this, especially if some editors are so pedantic about it they will revert "violations" of it.

2649:. It is very short, has no references – and has two stub tags. It is also accurate, complete, and useful. If I delete the stub tags it would seem likely that someone or some bot would only add them again – so I'll just leave those stub tags in place. Is there a "Not-a-stub" category or template? If not could someone create such? Or can an article be somehow packed to appear larger than stub-sized? Thanks, 103:

tagging, categorising etc are. We could of course do some simple tests ourselves. For example take a sample of 20,000 stubs and de-tag half, wait a month and see if there was a difference in the percentage expanded. Or try different tagging methods or location. Or try advertising 100 selected stubs via different means (subject projects, clean-up projects, Signpost, talk pages, mailing lists, universities).

1890:

lowest level of assessment, which is called "stub". However, "stub assessment" class is not the same as "stub" article, so a project may assess an article which is clearly not a stub as stub class for this and similar reasons. In theory though, if an article has that much unsourced content, a lot of it should probably be removed or moved to talk, and this would result in a stub article anyway. --

944:

will somehow encourage editors to add content, the question of whether stubs are useful to readers is not one to be ignored. Knowledge (XXG) is for readers, not for editors. If readers get even more cynical about Knowledge (XXG), most of the work put into the project will have been wasted. Here is a scenario. The article on the famous Ruritanian poet Hyrmant Schlanzk includes the following:

5125: 5023: 4854: 4471: 3371: 2758: 4414: 4349: 4288: 4528: 2475:"Note also that as stub templates are for maintenance purposes, not user browsing ... they do not count as categorization for the purposes of Knowledge (XXG)'s categorization policies. An article which has a "stubs" category on it must still be filed in the most appropriate content categories, even if one of them is a direct parent of the stubs category in question." 1513:

list does not fall under the umbrella of what we mean by "stub", and so should not be included. We'd end up needing to completely rework the editing guideline to make lists fit in, and when that's the case, it probably didn't belong there in the first place. I think a list is a list, whatever its length, and it can be considered complete (FL) or incomplete. --

6100:(dumb kind) What are the stub types for? If they are so that editors find articles needing work that exist in their areas of interest, then it makes sense to have stub types that match those areas of interest. These areas should be as wide or as narrow as necessary to suit the population of editors in that area. So item 4 should probably read something like 4180:. Describing the genus, explaining its taxonomy and classification, giving its distribution and habitat, and discussing the uses of its species requires an editor to look at a range of sources, and this takes much longer. In many areas of the tree of life, there are now only a handful of active editors, sometimes only one or two. Feel free to join in! 3865:. I'm only saying that because someone has been tagging many articles (600-1000 words in prose) as stubs. While these articles can certainly be expanded, they are not in any sense of the word stub. The wording here just encourages people to stick the stub tags where they should not be. Certainly unless an article is of high importance like 3419: 4675:, thereby avoiding this issue altogether? I agree that 2 blank linkes are more visually appealing, but I can't fault any editor who (not knowing better) removes the 2nd line while in edit view. This seems like the type of thing that's easier to address through a technical solution than through policy guidance. -- 3780:. There's no stub template in the text itself, but on the talk page it mentions the assessment that was done and found that it was stub class. If that assessment is now outdated, should I edit it directly, or request a reassessment, or what? (Since it doesn't seem to be as straightforward as removing a template.) 3952:

article, I would be flabbergasted if it is flagged as a stub. Using a word like "impossible" is simply unjustifiable and yes, absurd, when there are guidelines governing the size of article. There are ways of writing this without sounding unreasonable. In any case, I'm arguing for saying that if the

2169:

As this page says: "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub ... As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, and any decision on the article has to come down to an editor's best judgement". The fact that AWB completely undermines this

1762:

For stub tags, I had in my head a few paragraphs, not a few sentences as this page says, but a screenful is well beyond that either way. Sometimes it is because stub tags get left behind when the article is expanded, other times it is a mistake. Either way they should be removed if an article clearly

717:

Usual method is to simply stub the article as normal but to also make a note on the talk page to say that there was a longer article, with a link to the article history showing the earlier material. There should probably be a separate template (additional to the stub template) which can go at the top

459:

I'm not sure that we need this for appearance to the reader, but I think it is helpful in the edit box. A double blank line serves as a subtle indication that the (new) editor has reached the end of the article, and what follows can be ignored. Also, it helps less experienced people get things into

220:

IMO the instruction is probably not needed, but since it's already been in place for so long it's better to just leave it in. However, if you want to get rid of the 2 blank lines requirement then it's better to just remove that sentence altogether, instead of changing the requirement to 1 blank line,

4167:

there are so many stubs because there are few active editors interested in many groups of organisms. Making a list of the species in a genus just requires looking at a major secondary source, usually an online taxonomic database. Thus for spiders or plants, where I do most of my editing, the species

1874:

states "article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability." But after being told start class articles don't need sources by another editor, I am confused. So I guess my real question is where does it say this, and/or should

1452:

The fewer special cases the better. Expand tags are different from stub tags. A stub list may, perhaps, even be empty, and simply because an article is a list it doesn't mean that there may not be a need for some significant text, either in the lead or for each entry. For this reason I would allow

1373:

Feel free to add to these. I tend to think a seperate expand list tag is better, but would be happy either way, as long as the result is clear, AND it doesn't result in many 'complete' articles being constantly stubbed. In any case they will stil be a problem for autostubbing like with AWB, and with

556:

as they all have a template box before them that may vitiate any potential problems. Although it seems, that with a long article (past the info box) and without the template box at the bottom, the system makes extra space for the starting line, at least in my browser. Older browsers may still have a

479:

Personally, I prefer two blank lines, although I'm not sure that it's so critical that we need to mandate it. I think it helps signal, "The article is now over. What follows is templates and categories." This is particularly useful to less experienced editors. The point isn't to make the article

430:

regardless of whether there are two, one or no blank lines before it. Personally, when editing article for a different reason, and I encounter stubs placed before the cats, I move them to between the cats and ILLs; if there is no blank line before the stubs, I insert one; if there are three or more,

5266:

In my opinion "usually not considered" is less correct than "play a secondary role". It is pretty obvious that anything that is sometimes considered is practically always considered. I mean, how else would one know whether to consider it in any given case. The true meaning is of that phrase that it

4970:

as you note, this has been discussed before, and there's no consensus to change the guideline, so editors are quite right to uphold it. Personally, I don't care either way, but as with all stylistic issues over which there are differences of opinion, I do care about consistency, which is helpful to

4941:

I had not even known this was a thing before I had it pointed out to me when I was reverted over it by a user on an article today. I found being reverted over this extremely pedantic, and from looking back through this page it appears I'm not the only one. As others have pointed out, this guideline

4124:

Sports teams I can't comment on, but there's a lot of information about a genus that needs to be included to stop it being a stub: a description of the features of the genus; taxonomy including classification, phylogeny, subgroups; distribution, habitat and ecology; and uses. A mere list of species

4109:

Should we not consider an article as a whole. A policy which effectively says that any information in tabular form should be ignored is unhelpful. It leads to clogging up the list of long stubs with articles where it is sensible to include tabular information - and often there is not much else to

3978:

rather than on its overall length. I have more sympathy with this view, but I still do not accept that prose length alone makes an article not a stub. For example, all species are considered "notable" as a matter of policy, so there would be no question of deleting an article about a plant species.

3472:

This guideline does say "stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone". However, my understanding of the guideline is that the article's length isn't the primary consideration – the more relevant question is "How complete is the article?". If there's a great deal more that could be

2295:

Based on all these comments about this perennial question, I've expanded the text to list some of the common rules of thumb and to put the "no set size" rule in bold-faced text. There is no set size, and there is a significant diversity of quick assessment strategies. Perhaps this will be clearer

1574:

can be a rather broad thing to define. indeed some pages we call articles are also lists. and some articles started out as lists. So with that in mind, yes, lists can be stubs. As for AWB, I think the threshhold for stubs should be higher than 300 characters. (I think I saw someone propose 1000 in

1529:

We define a stub as "an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." So, if we have a list of presidents of a nation that includes only 50% of its presidents, even if the list is rich on information for each one and thus includes 8K of text, is it a stub? Strictly by the

983:

An excellent example, and well presented. My thought is that the stub template should be improved, so that it says something to the effect of "this article is a stub. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by expanding it. Suggestions may be found on the Talk page, and further information may be found on the

849:

Haven't you got something more useful to do with your time Chzz? Geographical place names only need verification of existence. And my Benin stubs have government population data. Expecting lots of web sources for towns in places like Benin is hardly indicative of its level of notability or level of

102:

Would the usability initiative be able to provide any input into decisions about how stub templates and categories are used? Basically what we have is a sensible arrangement derived from reasonable, but untested assumptions, we have one and a half million stubs, and no way of knowing how effective

6028:

criteria don't mention any specific number, but 4-5 articles is common practice. I see no reason why stub categories should be any different. Even if a higher number will be decided upon, I agree with the second part of the proposal, that a lower number should be acceptable for categories that are

4012:

and would be composed of entirely or nearly entirely irrelevant and incomprehensible details. It would have needed far more urgent tags added, and it being a stub would be the last thing I would worry about. This is an essentially absurd argument to justify the wording "it is impossible to state

3515:

I don't think articles should be marked as stubs just because they are largely in list form. The same arguments apply to articles about football teams, elections, sporting competitions and the like. They often contain a lot of information in tabular form. That seems much more useful than trying to

1904:

Thank you for the explanation. I think the confusion in my situation is that the content I've been dealing with is mostly regarding fictional characters, so there are articles with significant plot summaries (plot summaries have been determined to not need citations as watching the series verifies

1737:(or more) of running text. These aren't just old templates, either; they're being actively added to articles of this size. I'm getting the impression that "stub" is now being used, at least by some active users, to label any article that could do with expansion or is otherwise less than perfect. 1248:

That edit seems fine to me. Incidentally, when I first got involved with stub sorting, I remember learning early on that lists should not be considered stubs, so it surprises me to learn it was only added to that pages description in the last two months. A quick check found several mentions of the

943:

The discussion above has brought out many useful viewpoints. I will try to summarize them before asking for input to a straw poll. But I am not comfortable that we are giving enough weight to the reader's experience and would like to first open discussion on that. Whatever our hopes are that stubs

889:

If there is a general acceptance of notability for some class of subjects, such as legislators, licensed broadcasting stations which produce some of their programming locally, public high schools or private high schools of a certain size, accredited colleges and universities, inhabited or formerly

123:

FWIW, I keep an eye on those of my contribs which have been re-edited after my last edit (via a "hide top" on my contribs list) - I'm finding that the majority of stubs which I move to more specific stub categories seem to get either improved or expanded within a couple of weeks (though most still

6050:

to dividing large categories. There is nothing about aircraft from different decades that would make someone interested in 1950s aircraft be uninterested in stubs about 1960s aircraft. There isn't anything wrong with having large stub categories, and there is something wrong with having editors

5948:

I do, however, agree that there are some practical limits: a stub category with many thousands of articles is nearly useless for direct use. (It might still be useful for searching or PetScan results, but who's going to look at page 23 of a huge category's contents?) A category with hundreds of

5519:

The following is purely optional advice. Based on my experience a new RFC might more effectively attract useful responses if it quotes the relevant existing text of the guideline, if it presents a more specific proposal, and/or if the the author starts off the !voting section presenting their own

2247:

and many other sources note that the average lenght of an English word is 5.1 letters, so I guess 300 words may be a better mark. I find words a better visual measure than characters, through this is a personal feeling; comments would be appreciated, through I think we can uncontroversially agree

1909:

policies show that any article lacking sources could not satisfy the requirements of start class? Any guidance on the proper way to solve this difference of opinion is greatly appreciated. I've held off working on classifying as to not start an edit war. I've asked at the wikiproject but have not

1889:

I would have thought all articles, save possibly some lists, 'need' sources, and that an article not having any sources was considered to be a temporary situation for an article still under construction (however long it may actually stay in that state in practice). Hence it would have to have the

1512:

while keeping this particular issue in mind. That is, how much of the description of a stub applies to lists? How much of the "ideal" applies to lists? ...and so forth. From a quick read through, my personal opinon is that lists don't fit into our description of stubs. This suggests to me that a

1153:

So the status quo is that stub tags are used sparingly on lists, and I encourage that to continue. The “incomplete list template” should be used when that better describes the problem with the list while a list that needs significant additional text, either in the lead or for each entry, can be

1120:

Consensus is clear that AWB should not be used to tag lists as stubs. Consensus is much less clear on tagging lists as stubs. The !vote is evenly split. Rich Farmbrough and EncycloPetey both make strong arguments (one that lists don’t fit the definition of a stub well, the other that labeling

6131:

With the caveat that I'm not a stub sorter and thus not super experienced in this area, I find WhatamIdoing's argument above convincing, so I'm inclined toward no. Ghost's point about workability above makes sense, but I think we should have a number, which is more definitive than a qualitative

1740:

I haven't been very active on Knowledge (XXG) for a number of years, so I went looking to see if there had been any change in the definition of "stub", but if there has been, it hasn't been reflected on this page. Does this page still reflect the community's understanding of what a stub is? --

1035:

I notice on many websites they provide useful buttons beneath their content in order to make it easy for users to share that content with others via e-mail or on specific social networking websites. I've encountered some stubs on Knowledge (XXG) and was hoping to share it with people I knew had

701:

we're discussing what to do about some articles that need stubbing due to long-term pollution. I think we want a tag, something like "This is a stubbed version of a much longer article that was found to have problems. You may see the earlier version at . Please help us rebuild it". Is there any

4060:

which by extending the argument from "a few paragraphs" to the word "impossible" implies that prose of many many paragraphs (theoretically an infinite number of paragraphs) long that are relevant and pertinent to subject would still be stubs simply because more could be written (it at no point

3545:

This article is the longest stub in the encyclopedia. About 3 times bigger than the next biggest stub. It has annotated pictures and a vast list of species. It may not be complete or prefect. As an innocent in the world of botany it seems substantial to me. Listing the species in a genus is

270:

I think you have to look at stubs templates which use "tall" icons, which butt up against navboxes in an unsightly manner. Years ago users caught loads of flack for formatting without two blank lines. And the same used to apply to navboxes until CSS was changed, you can still see (some quite

5598:

Stub sorter here. I don't know how the recommended minimum number was set (it was before my time), but as you may have seen, there are many stub categories which seem to fall into the 50-60 article range. Frequently editors seem to be eager to create stub types but not so eager to apply them,

2188:

Actually, 500 words is normally taken as a sign that the article is so far past the stub stage that nobody could realistically contest removal of the stub tag. (Automated actions and things that require judgment don't mix well.) Ten sentences, which commonly amounts to 150 words, used to be

5333:

I had 2 issues with the colon. First, the part of a sentence that comes before the colon has to be an independent clause (a clause that'd work as a stand-alone sentence). Go to website www.scribbr.com/language-rules/colons/ and check out the part with the heading "Introducing a list" and, in

2122:

way (a guideline) would be an improvement. An alternative to making such a choice would to be to recode or reconfigure Knowledge (XXG)'s MediaWiki such that, in the appearance of every page, stub notices coalesce in a similar manner as category membership indicators do. -- Lindberg 01:06, 17

141:

That's interesting data, I have just done some work on stubs SmackBot edited in 2009, and a significant proportion of them have not been touched since - so that's some kind of a control. But again that is an impression, not a hard figure, and we don't know what biases my be in either sample.

5461:

On the other hand: A stub that cannot be expanded, but can be better discussed in context of a larger topic that is clearly notable and not a stub, should be redirected (not deleted) to be discussed there. For example, we have thousands of stubby articles on named towns which we will likely

4809:

instead. As per Manual of Style, stub templates are meant to be at the very end line of a stub article but sometimes it is not visually reflected when published. This is particularly true for those which have an infobox and for some reason it is longer that the entire article content (until

3327:

instructs the editor to add references. It may be "not widely practiced", but I think most established editors would agree that lack of references is a problem worth tagging, even in a single-sentence stub: that one sentence needs a source, and if the editor who has just created the stub is

416:

states that the order is navboxes, ..., categories, stubs, interlanguage links (ILLs). Since no article should be uncategorised, there will always be some cats, and so stubs shouldn't be butting against the navboxes unless the article doesn't comply with MOS in at least these respects (the

4714:

A quick look at other articles in the drama-film stub category revealed that most of them had a second stub category. If a stub can be classified in several categories, then it is a stub in each of those categories, although it may seem excessive to put in half-a-dozen stub categories. -

1767:

would be close to the borderline I have commonly seen used, and it is certainly more than a couple of sentences, and has quite a bit of info. Sometimes articles of about this length have tags, sometimes they don't. Much more prose text than that and I think a stub tag shouldn't be being

3888:

when "length" is taken to mean simply the length of the article and not of paragraphs of text. There are many articles on genera of organisms, for example, which contain lengthy lists of species, but are rightly classed as stubs because there is little or no other information – look at

1530:

definition yes, because it's missing half the list and therefore is "too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." If we mark lists as "stubs" on that basis, then it becomes redundant with "incomplete" (which has its own template). My point is that lists need to be nearly

3328:

alerted/reminded of this ASAP they are perhaps more likely to provide it. Other editors will also look for refs, and also the reader will be alerted to the fact that this is potentially unreliable information to be treated with particular caution, as there is nothing to support it.

5584:)? If so, what is the purpose of having a minimum category size if the whole point of having such a category is to facilitate its reduction to zero? Is the question about where to create those categories (as opposed to having a stub subcategory for every conceivable category)? — 4745:

From this very page: "If an article overlaps several stub categories, more than one template may be used, but it is strongly recommended that only those relating to the subject's main notability be used. A limit of three or, if really necessary, four stub templates is advised."

4276:. MoS has no position on stub tag indentation; so it's up to people here if they object as a site-wide matter, and up to individual articles' editorial pools if they object there. The principal objection someone might raise would be inconsistency between articles, probably. 3795:

If you edit the talk page of a stub, you'll find "class=Stub". Change this to what you think appropriate. Then if the article has a stub template at the bottom, edit the page and remove it. If others diagree with your assessment, they are free to revert or use another class.

5684:

The question was apparently worded badly, since the reply "Maybe 200 characters" implies that ThesenatorO5-2 didn't understand the question. It took me till today to understand what the question was. Now that I do, my opinion is that no exception should be made. The regular

1051:

I think it would be too much like advertising. You may find those buttons useful, but ultimately they are just a form of advertising for the social networks in question. Maybe a generic "email this article" would work, but it would be hard to prevent its use in spamming.

1756:

As far as I know, the definition for stub tags hasn't changed, but some editors may have differing ideas on how long is too long. Article assessments are another issue: Most are out of date, and not all projects use the same definition of stub-class as an assessment

984:

articles that link here" with "articles that link here" as a wikilink to the articles that link to that stub. My opinion at this point is that a suggestion like this is superior to some sort of "more information here than in the linking articles" requirement.

5262:

was reverted. I explained my edit with the following edit summary: "Formulate this a bit more careful and a bit more correct.". No explanatory edit summary was provided by the reverting editor. That lack of etiquette notwithstanding, I'll explain my edit.

3138:- if there are refs with bare URLs they ought to be upgraded, from the start. I think that things may have moved on in the 7 years since that previous discussion, in terms of our current expectation that all new content will be referenced from the start. 425:

has the navbox after the cats). I don't actually see why two blank lines are needed as opposed to one; an argument in the past was that this made it easier for bots to detect the stubs, but any well-written bot should be able to detect a stub template

4971:

everyone, readers as well as editors. One rationale is that the stub template isn't really part of the article – it's a hopefully temporary message to editors that it needs to be expanded – so setting it off from the article has some justification.

4145:

Why are there so many articles about genera - often longstanding articles - which contain hardly anything but a list of species? Is there not somewhere an agreed description of the features? Could those articles not be moved into the Start class?

234:

That (removing any specific requirement altogether) is also fine with me. Although the best thing in my opinion is to be clear about it and change the requirement to one, and just agree to not make any special efforts, apart from changing it in AWB.

3546:

obviously an important part of any article of this kind. Surely the amount of information is a relevant consideration is deciding what is or is not a stub, regardless of whether or not the information is expressed in prose or in tabular form?

6051:

spend hours figuring out whether a particular stub is "really" late 1950s or "really" early 1960s. Stub tags are not a primary categorization system. Fine granularity is not as desirable as maximizing the number of editors who see the stubs.

2536:

Thank you. I understand how to do this now. However, yesterday, I couldn't find out where to find the stub code on the page and how to remove it. For relatively new editors, perhaps some clarification could be added, e.g. delete the stub code

5949:

articles is not bad. I might suggest the West Bengal stub cat, which lists less than 800 stubs (and therefore 4 pages), as an example of a cat that's nearing but maybe hasn't quite reached a plausible upper limit. (Thank you for the ping.)

4090:

That isn't what the part that say "impossible" refers to because the preceding sentence does not argue that. For a long rambling article full of irrelevant material you would use a different tag anyway if not outright proposal for deletion.

340:

Some things do look bad with only one line in between but I've never seen an example of something that would exist in an article. Perhaps the specific stub templates that need an extra line should include the line as part of the template?

3855:

I would suggest that the wording here be changed. The idea that "it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length" is simply absurd, there is for example no way an article of the length of article like

124:

remain at stub level). So it's not entirely untested assumptions, though (of course) I don't have a "control group" to compare it to. As to the advertising of stubs, that's already done regularly via WikiProjects and user talk pages.

4623:. In addition to the markup concern noted by SMcCandlish, personally I do not find it visually appealing. It looks "off" somehow (misaligned), particularly when it appears immediately after references, which are already indented. -- 2033:

Personally, I don't follow that guideline rigidly. When there are no blank lines before the first stub template, I add one; where there are three or more, I reduce them to two. But if there are either one or two, I leave them alone.

4057:

Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written, and their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its

3941:

Given that the preceding sentence says "their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long", that sentence is clearly referring to prose because the preceding sentence is its justification. In any case, if

1791:

Over the last three or so years I've seen a few (perhaps no more than four) newbie editors happily working through a category and adding a stub template to every article, regardless of its current state: for example, adding

205:, where two blank lines was said to give "the desired spaceing". This is precisely what I contest. I think the outcome of the old discussion here was that such spacing is not deemed necessary by most. Your opinions please. 816:

I have started a discussion over on GNG, which mostly relates to stubs - and similar issues to those in the section above, except it is concerning the need for minimal reliable sources in articles - even if they're stubs.

1840:

Hello, I'm looking for clarification on stub articles vs. non-stub articles and the requirement of sources. Can an article without any reliable sources be considered anything but stub class? (Start or above)? Thank you!

1425:

for a list which is complete as at time of writing, and which could be used for small-but-complete lists to make sure they don't get labelled as incomplete, or as stubs, by editors with or without the assistance of AWB.

5466:

do this for, but due to past "notability" discussions on schools, probably hundreds of similar articles on high/upper schools that are stubs that could be merged up into the towns/cities that those schools are part of.

3979:

If that article contained a long section on cultural references to that species but gave no description of the species, said nothing about its taxonomy or classification, or its distribution and habitat, it would be a

5402:

might benefit from an edit which strives make it more readable for beginning (or infrequent) editors wanting to create a stub article in an existing category, which seems like it would be the most common use-case.

866:

Geographical articles only need verification of existence? I realise that it's popular, in some quarters, to create thousands of microstubs from geographical databases of dubious reliability; but we should at least

3098:. But I believe that stubs ought to have references from the start - a BLP stub will be deleted eventualy under PRODBLP if unsourced, and everything added to the encyclopedia ought to have a verifiable source. So 1665:

there is a discussion about the order of categories and stub templates where an editor has suggested considering the elimination of all stub templates. I've suggested that they pursue that discussion here instead.

2095:

I make it two lines whenever I am editing the footer anyway (unless I forget to), but something like this should not be a reason for an edit on its own I don't think - similar to changing the order of categories.

5516:

Normally a new RFC shouldn't immediately follow an RFC closure. However given that this RFC started over three months ago, and the lack of effective discussion, there is no prejudice against opening a new RFC.

2320:) and put the tag at the end as per the instructions on this page - that just made the tag appear at the end. Is this page wrong, did I do something wrong, or is every stub notification I have ever seen wrong? 5365:

I have seen many sentences, in which a list (mostly even without colon) was continued by the rest of the sentence. But I agree: in all these sentences it was not completely easy to figure out, where the list

5292:

And before (such) a lengthy enumeration it is: good, generally helpfull considered and generally agreed upon style, to put a colon. Reference (e.g.): Thorndike Barnhart: Worldbook Dictionary / prechapters.

3860:

could be described as a stub. There must be a limit on when an article can be described as a stub, especially when Knowledge (XXG) already recommends that articles should avoid exceeding certain sizes per

2499:

Can further clarification be added to the Removing stub status section to explain how to remove a stub? What is the process? I've searched through Knowledge (XXG) but cannot find this information. Thanks.

161:

True, it's more anecdotal evidence than good hard facts, but it is perhaps indicative. I've also no indication of how frequently those articles were being edited before I changed/added the stub templates.

1905:

the content), so while I have been labeling any such articles without sources as "stub," some others feel they are "start." Is this truly a matter of opinion, or am I right to conclude that this page and

5898:, which backlog are you hoping to solve? The existence of unsorted stubs (which would get worse by having narrower stub types) or the existence of "too many" stubs, with too few editors expanding them? 5945:

doing stub-sorting, or were you trying to find an article to expand? I'm not sure that what makes it more appealing to sort stubs is a good marker for what makes it easier to find an article to expand.

4008:

An article full of incomprehensible or irrelevant details would not stay as it is, and it would be trimmed back to the meaningful part. I have not seen any article that is the size of an article like

5406:

Perhaps I'm wrong, is there another there a page I should look at to help me remember about creating stub articles? If so an info box linking to it at the top of this article would seem appropriate.

2269:

If an article about a film, novel, etc, says "X is a film" and then has 500 words of plot summary but no further information about the film it's a stub. It's qualititative as well as quantitative.

3974:

what you are arguing is quite different from the statement to which you object. You are arguing that it is possible to state whether an article is a stub or not based solely on the length of its

1138:

There are also a small handful of lists currently tagged as stubs, but tagging lists as stubs has been pretty rare (about 0.1% at the moment of all lists in the Wikiproject are tagged as stubs).

4641:

on 5 November 2017 changed stub placement guidance from "two blank lines" to "one blank line". Given this issue has been discussed multiple times before, was there consensus for this change? --

1485:

for articles" (my emphasis). This suggests to me that if a list isn't good enough for List-class, it may be given Stub-class; and this in turn permits the use of a stub template on the article.

3655: 3718:

Kindly explain here why your thoughts are that an 8 inch flashcard would be a stub and that you just must sink the most reliable and pertinent information into a mush of swamping wordiness.

3747:

Within the encyclopedia britanica, written hardcover edition, an 86%+ (3SD+) of articles are short paragraphs no larger than an 8" flashcard. Many another, no larger then a 4" flashcard.

3179: 3712:

I really don´t get your boards issue with encyclopedic 1 paragraph overal coverage. Those are not stubs, they are ample and sufficient for any individual whom would review the section.

4034:

well, we must agree to disagree. For me, what matters is editorial judgement and, since assessments of class and importance are always related to WikiProjects, WikiProject guidelines.

3621: 2450:

and I are not sure about this. I have never checked the permcats when I have removed a stub tag, but I will try to remember to do that now. Perhaps the guideline should recommend it.

5409:

While topics like guidelines for creating new stub templates are important, it seems like linked topic could best address that sort of context rather than prose in this context.

2731:

Now it is clearly incomplete in another sense; a sentence fragment has been appended. I know nothing about the substance and the fragment is suggestive, so I merely note it here. --

2153:

When is a stub no longer a stub? I know in AWB's tagging fixes, if it sees a page with 500 words or more with a stub tag it removes it. Is this a general guideline? An upper limit?

5794:

4. Will there be a significant number of existing stubs in this category? (Ideally, a newly created stub type has 100–300 articles. In general, any new stub category should have a

1856:

aLst I checked, it can be Start, but nothing higher. It'd be pretty silly to call an articles that is ten screens long a "Stub" just because it was unrefernced, don't you think?

1269:

I was not a party to those discussions, but when I saw in the edit summary the title of this section, I right away thought "Why not?". So perhaps this issue should be rediscussed?

1777:

is an example of a page which I would call clearly a stub, but is more than one page. Pages with big infoboxes and lists and lots of references can be deceiving in that sense. --

4580:

All that said, given that people have been arguing for a decade on 1 or 2 blank lines before the stub tags, I doubt there'd be consensus to start indenting them any time soon.

2217:(so, not lists, infoboxes, tables, and such) moves the stub to start. I have tagged probably several thousand articles based on that rule... PS. DYK rules mentioned are here: 1959:

In context, BTW, a plot summary is always considered to be implicitly sourced to the book itself, even if nobody types out a ==References== section and lists the book there.

2981: 698: 528:

I think that "signaling" the end of the article per se, is a bad reason to have a double blank line. Especially since many articles have no stub templates at all...

5599:

resulting in underpopulated categories. Anyway, my mind is open on the question of lowering the minimum and will encourage my fellow stub sorters to chime in here.

4987:

Well, I would like to propose to make it one line. I know that this has been discussed before, but the argument never convinced me, and I find it unnatural to have

1801: 4810:

references or external links section), and where there are no navboxes or anything that can indirectly function as a line break preceding stub templates. With the

2012:

It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it, and another one after them before the interlanguage link

1979:"Note that regardless of the length of the page or the numbers of edits made to it, a page containing only plot summary is still a stub - an incomplete article." 3516:

convey the same information in prose. I think articles should be considered as a whole. Excluding consideration of pictures, tables and the like seems perverse.

434:

So: don't change explicit "two blank lines" to explicit "a blank line", change it to "either one or two blank lines". That'll forestall the useless-edit mob. --

3492: 2139: 3983:

regardless of its length. It might not be a stub to another WikiProject, but it would definitely be a plant stub. And as the agreed assessment criteria for

3698: 2707:(and the other articles linked by that template) than as a standalone article. I didn't burn time looking, but surely this could even be merged somewhere? 1795: 5267:

is always considered, just that it is not usually the decisive consideration. Which is precisely what I said when stating it is of secondary importance.

4177: 3530:

I would advise the "humble stub sorter" to make no changes to stub status and defer to the judgement of local editors when encountering this gray area. ~

3206:

I presume you're aware that your preference that stubs be referenced is not widely practiced. I agree that there is an issue with BPLs, for that we have

2441: 4885:

Principal listed has spelling error. Should be Brian Young. Also there are two principals. Should read: Co-Principals Brian Young and Dina Marschall

3984: 1250: 956:, fishing in the Sktor River and exploring the pine and oak forests of the Ztandl mountains. It was here that he first became interested in lepidoptery. 506: 2170:(and other) guidelines has been raised before, and brushed aside. So yes, to all intents and purposes, a stub is an article with fewer than 500 words. 4814:, these stub articles may have a more uniform visual with those in which the stub templates are naturally rendered at the very bottom of the article. 1348:

A list needing work may be of just as much interest to an editor who has found a stub category matching their interest/expertise to work on expanding.

5064: 1538:

it is. Rather, it is determined by having a high percentage of the total information present. Completeness is the relevant criterion for lists. --

1367:

The judgement of whether a list needs work or not usually has more to do with outside research than examination of the list as a standalone article.

1145:

that lists couldn't be tagged as stubs was not discussed until now and the change wasn't clear from the edit summary, so it's hard to call that the

4228:

Howdy, for about 2 months, I've been indenting stubs on articles, as IMHO it's better visual optics. What are the views of others, on this matter?

2425:. I guess that is taken for granted. Nor does the guideline suggest checking the permcats when a stub tag is removed, but that may be a good idea. 1662: 5428:

If an article meets the notability requirements, but the majority of what's known doesn't amount to much, does that still constitute a stub? —

3220:

has linked to is interesting and indicates there is enthusiasm for tagging stubs with sourcing issues. I guess this means I should stop removing

2697:

I would be suspicious of any claim that an article of this length is "complete". If truly so, then it is mostly "useful" as yet another link in

1361:

The amount of prose wanted in a good list (usually only the lead, and posibly a note or two) is far less than stub standards in a normal article.

2949:, so the possibility of having 60 songs for any one of 2010/11/12/13/14 are currently nil. Most period-based stub categories (such as those for 4455: 4390: 4329: 3689: 2317: 1948:. RFC 2119 is one popular description of the differences between those words. A B-class article always has references; a Start-class article 4569: 3403: 2437: 2233: 460:

the right place, especially with external links. Without it, the latest addition to ==External links== tends to show up underneath a navbox.

5729: 4258:

have been advising for years to not use that markup in articles for visual indentation. The safest markup for something like that would be

3566:

I thought we had an essay, if not a guideline/policy on this topic, but I cannot find it. Can anyone link me to it (and ping me)? Thanks, --

1692: 6176: 5863: 5840: 5647: 5568: 4512: 2650: 2380:

That's the template itself, not a page which uses the template... the big green box is the template's documentation, and it does state (at

2321: 2914:

Is there a reason why stub categories for hip hop songs aren't separated this way? Other genres have them separated by year (yeah, I know

5546:

What should be the recommended minimum size for stub categories? Should an exception be adopted for accepted subcategory schemes, as for

3913:: "It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category". 5230: 5181: 5054:

John Hoskin was an artist in residence at the University of Georgia from 1973-1974. He donated a sculpture to the Institute of Ecology.

3757: 3728: 2367: 6000:(warning: huge page), instead of looking for stubs to expand. I wonder whether that kind of work is more typical of newer editors. 3910: 2851:

Do we have a gross number of how many stubs there are in total on en.wikipedia? (I wasn't sure when and/or where we discussed this..?)

1488: 4889: 2701: 1121:

lists as a stub makes it clear that significant text is needed). So I see no consensus on the issue of tagging lists as stubs or not.

1088: 3681: 2588: 5996:

If I'm looking for something to do (which is rare; work tends to find me, rather than me looking for it), I usually use a tool like

4758: 4591: 3925: 3750:

An encyclopedia must be concise and too the point, and in being so, not open to fast ´new age´ bible writ style wordy engineering.

3684:. SFC will assist new editors in creating useful stubs on notable subjects. Please feel free to discuss and expand on the idea at 2940: 1184: 3003: 803: 798: 786: 781: 773: 198: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5875:

IMHO, we could lower it by a smaller increment, perhaps to 50 articles, and see whether that solves any of the backlog problems.

2946: 2790: 2135: 3032: 2563:, for that very practical suggestion. I've added a sentence and hope that it will help the next person who wants to do this. 377: 373: 369: 221:

as then we'd be getting thousands of useless edits by users and/or bots wanting to make articles conform to this new rule. --

3635: 3017: 2862: 2675: 2631: 707: 5447:

Yes. Because a stub is not necessarily a temporary status. Some articles are bound to stay stubs forever, and that is fine.

3715:

My opinion would be that your board would be looking for paparazzi grief, or worse, information to extort in populous form.

5541:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1194:

I'll endorse it if necessary, but I don't see a need. I had a look and I thought it was a very well-considered summing up.

5966:- I admit that I rarely do more than correct grammar and punctuation, fix redlinks and redirects, and sort stubs; editing 5663:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2954: 418: 3721:

Very appreciative of your answer (that is, if you have what it takes to make and formulate a truthfull correct answer).

2617: 647: 3953:

prose content of an article passes a certain point, the stub tag would no longer be applicable and should not be used.

821: 5783:

The last RfC closed as no consensus due to inactivity. Using feedback from the "closer", I will try again as follows:

3815: 3785: 2596: 1805: 4994:

between different part of an article, and suddenly, lo and behold, at the very end of the article there suddenly are

4401:

There are other indentation templates, but this one is a block element, so you can put more than one stub tag in it:

2027: 1978: 1253:

from well before this, but I haven't been around long enough to know what was involved in the decision and where. --

5970:

is not really in my wheelhouse. Thus I am not the best judge of what might appeal to an editor, I suppose. Cheers!

5097:. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You should be able to edit the page 4448: 4383: 4322: 3435: 3165: 2872: 1985: 1973:

I agree that plot summaries are assumed to be sourced to the work. However articles "should" not consist solely of

1915: 1880: 1846: 752: 38: 5703:

I was invited by the bot. I don't have much of an opinion other than it seems like not a good time to close it.

5131: 5029: 4860: 3377: 2764: 5811:

Should the recommended minimum of 60 articles be lowered to 25? (This number may be subject to further revision.)

5581: 4562: 3594: 3407: 2447: 2213:. Stubs are not allowed as DYK for being too incomplete. So a logical conclusion is that the 250 word mark - for 2131: 1458: 703: 678: 655: 276: 254: 202: 147: 108: 6116: 4998:

lines in front of a stub template. Completely inconsistent and should be removed from the recommendations IMHO.

4829:

This suggestion is now more than two years old, but I would like to express my support for this idea as well. —

2996: 2984:, has been open related to removing stub tags from all redirects. Community input is welcome at the request. — 2613: 2606: 2218: 1453:

lists to be tagged as stubs, but I wholly agree with PamD that it would be wise for AWB to avoid such tagging.

1358:

Lists (like dab pages) are one type of article which in cases can be complete as intended with only a few lines.

1135:

It is clear, as Redrose64 points out, that the list Wikiproject expects lists to be tagged as stubs on occasion.

6171: 6108:

to suit their specific project. So, if there is a project or a group within a WikiProject specifically covered

5858: 5835: 5642: 5563: 5075: 4505: 2654: 1409: 1041: 329: 5803: 3685: 2325: 2209:

I use the 250 words rule. Reason being, 250 words is a miniumum requirement for an article to be able to be a

5234: 4805:

I would like to suggest for the practice of adding two blank lines before the first stub to be replaced with

4055:

You can disagree with me, but at no point in this discussion have you defended this quote in the guideline -

3987:

says "if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category".

2894:. If 30% of articles have a stub tag, it is meaningless -- like the 20% that are insufficiently referenced. 2371: 1287:

It already appears to be under discussion; I am aware of about four threads (this one included), contrary to

6070: 5815: 5185: 4976: 4716: 4656: 4185: 4130: 4039: 3992: 3900: 3836: 3801: 3761: 3732: 3072: 2821: 1715: 719: 363: 3753: 3724: 2915: 2127: 1076: 6123: 6056: 6005: 5954: 5903: 5071: 4893: 3826: 3811: 3781: 3663: 3279: 3271: 2794: 2592: 2568: 2301: 2194: 2080: 2056: 1964: 1861: 1633: 1618: 1593: 1543: 1518: 1394: 1317: 1238: 1084: 500: 468: 5229:

Given that "you can improve this by expanding it" became a meme, maybe this template should be reworded?

3585: 1729:

I've been seeing a lot of stub templates and stub-class assessments being added to articles that contain

761: 47: 17: 5414: 4912: 4754: 4588: 4441: 4376: 4315: 4268: 4261: 3921: 3478: 3276:; but if it's a BLP, and it has no references at all, and it was created after 18 March 2010, give it a 3263: 3224: 3173: 3062: 2880: 2540: 2484: 2418: 2390:

of the article, after the "External links" section, any navigation templates, and the category tags." --

2175: 1981: 1911: 1876: 1842: 1764: 1700: 1338:

Lists are (unlike talk pages, categories or dab pages) encyclopedic articles not background maintenance.

1203: 1178: 1000: 855: 6025: 5686: 5547: 1710:

There is no presence of the "latin script stub" on the stub type list, but countless articles have it!

1080: 1815:

So, see if you can determine whether it's an enthusiastic but ill-informed newbie, and assist them. --

1154:

tagged as a stub if it otherwise is also too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject.

952:

Schlanzk spent many idyllic summers with his Kashubian grandparents in the remote highland village of

633:

We have fiercely disagreed on another subject, but in this case you and I are of one mind completely.

5436: 5296: 4819: 4777: 4732: 4700: 4555: 4209: 4169: 4151: 4115: 3551: 3521: 3462: 3247: 3210: 2950: 2620:), just as a one off alternative and see how it goes - similar prizes. Discuss on talk page. Cheers, 2550: 2505: 2023: 1455: 1037: 675: 652: 273: 251: 144: 105: 5728:

Maybe I missed something, but until I saw it in the Spotlight I didn't know about the discussion at

3296: 2516: 2386: 2336: 413: 6159: 6034: 5846: 5823: 5710: 5694: 5674: 5630: 5618: 5586: 5551: 5489: 5452: 5272: 5003: 4498: 3503: 3307: 3255: 3190: 2965: 2836: 2714: 2527: 2515:

It already says "any editor may remove its stub template"; "the stub template may be removed" and "

2398: 2353: 2042: 1823: 1499: 1303: 1274: 880: 638: 585: 533: 517: 442: 402: 388: 323: 309: 295: 240: 227: 210: 193:

to this guideline, removing the requirement to have two blank lines before stub templates, and was

5203:

Not sure what article you're asking for these changes to be made on, but I'm pretty sure it isn't

2469: 1906: 1871: 1870:

The reason I thought they had to have at least one source was that the Start class description at

1478: 912: 5213: 5107: 4972: 4726: 4652: 4181: 4126: 4050: 4035: 4003: 3988: 3936: 3896: 3832: 3797: 3629: 3011: 2856: 2825: 2768: 2688: 2669: 2625: 2161: 1711: 1211: 1020: 973: 728: 168: 130: 4965: 4944: 1288: 650:(play with the page if you wish). And yes a half-line would be ideal. Or ditching the icons... 1389:

Don't worry about AWB. As soon as we form clear consensus I'll update the code accordingly. --

602:. I don't think the former looks bad. Having categories between the text and the stub template 249:

There are no users or bots making edits to put them in, so your statement seems without merit.

6082: 6052: 6001: 5979: 5963: 5950: 5930: 5918: 5899: 5884: 5766: 5607: 5353: 5339: 4676: 4642: 4624: 4233: 3659: 3609: 3572: 3290: 3132: 3122: 3082: 3036: 3031:

I would like to propose including some advice about over-tagging stubs on this page. Here's a

2564: 2297: 2254: 2230: 2224: 2190: 2076: 2052: 1960: 1857: 1746: 1629: 1614: 1589: 1561: 1539: 1514: 1419: 1390: 1313: 1234: 989: 496: 464: 5787: 5629:

The RfC template was removed by a bot due to inactivity. No consensus has been reached yet. –

5287: 5204: 5135: 5033: 4916: 4864: 4539: 4482: 4425: 4360: 4299: 4110:

be said. For example the genera articles about insects and many articles about sports teams.

3862: 3488: 3381: 3324: 3108:

seems to me to be one of the most important tags to add to a stub. I don't see much point in

2817: 2072: 1974: 1809: 1571: 1509: 1155: 965: 953: 5410: 4834: 4769: 4749: 4583: 4247: 4085: 3916: 3474: 2899: 2876: 2480: 2366:(probably because I generally don't look at the very bottom), and got a little bit confused. 2171: 2101: 1895: 1782: 1696: 1473: 1379: 1292: 1258: 1215: 1195: 1174: 895: 851: 622: 562: 349: 4251: 2210: 1341:

Some lists clearly do need improvement and expansion. Lists should have a lead section per

872: 718:

or bottom of the article saying that (I've made a prototype of the sort of thing I mean at

577:

they had a navbox before them: please see Rich Farmbrough's post of 13:45, 1 March 2011. --

5814:

Should an exception be added for standard subdivisions of large stub types, e.g. dividing

5525: 5475: 5430: 5381: 5323: 4950: 4921: 4815: 4205: 4162: 4147: 4111: 3547: 3517: 3458: 3112: 3092: 3040: 2560: 2546: 2501: 2433: 2422: 2019: 1163: 5997: 2813: 2362:

Thank you. I've generally only noticed references to stubs at the top of the page, as on

2071:

I think that the blank lines are good, but fighting over that seems like a candidate for

1733:

more than "only one or a few sentences of text" -- frequently on articles that contain a

431:

I reduce to two: But when I find either one or two blank lines, I neither add nor remove.

6102:

Will there be a workable number of editors interested in articles fitting this category?

3118:

myself, though as it's an accepted tag it applies to stubs as much as to anything else.

6030: 5742: 5690: 5485: 5448: 5268: 4999: 4811: 4806: 4798: 4669: 4173: 3535: 3496: 3433: 3338: 3300: 3235: 3217: 3183: 3180:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 5#Template:Unreferenced stub

3148: 3128:

too - almost every stub will have at least one link which could usefully be made. Also

3102: 3048: 2958: 2829: 2708: 2520: 2391: 2346: 2279: 2035: 1816: 1774: 1676: 1492: 1436: 1296: 1270: 1057: 925: 876: 837: 634: 578: 529: 510: 435: 398: 381: 305: 291: 236: 222: 206: 6182: 6150: 6126: 6088: 6060: 6038: 6009: 5985: 5958: 5936: 5907: 5890: 5869: 5772: 5751: 5714: 5698: 5678: 5653: 5621: 5612: 5593: 5574: 5529: 5493: 5479: 5456: 5441: 5418: 5385: 5343: 5327: 5276: 5248: 5238: 5215: 5189: 5109: 5079: 5007: 4980: 4957: 4927: 4897: 4838: 4823: 4785: 4762: 4740: 4719: 4708: 4679: 4660: 4645: 4627: 4601: 4237: 4213: 4189: 4155: 4134: 4119: 4100: 4070: 4043: 4022: 3996: 3962: 3929: 3904: 3878: 3840: 3819: 3805: 3789: 3765: 3736: 3702: 3667: 3639: 3615: 3598: 3578: 3555: 3539: 3525: 3507: 3482: 3466: 3442: 3411: 3347: 3311: 3239: 3194: 3157: 3052: 3021: 2990: 2969: 2926: 2903: 2884: 2866: 2840: 2798: 2740: 2719: 2690: 2679: 2658: 2635: 2600: 2572: 2554: 2531: 2519:

in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable". What is missing here? --

2509: 2488: 2462: 2402: 2375: 2357: 2329: 2305: 2288: 2260: 2198: 2179: 2163: 2105: 2084: 2060: 2046: 1989: 1968: 1919: 1899: 1884: 1865: 1850: 1827: 1786: 1750: 1719: 1704: 1685: 1637: 1622: 1597: 1581: 1565: 1547: 1522: 1503: 1464: 1445: 1398: 1383: 1342: 1321: 1312:

I informed the discussion at the editor's page and at AWB's page to continue here. --

1307: 1278: 1262: 1242: 1219: 1167: 1092: 1061: 1045: 1024: 1005: 993: 977: 932: 899: 884: 860: 844: 734: 711: 684: 661: 642: 628: 589: 566: 553: 537: 521: 472: 446: 406: 392: 355: 333: 313: 299: 282: 260: 244: 229: 214: 174: 153: 136: 114: 5208: 5102: 4096: 4066: 4018: 4009: 3958: 3949: 3874: 3866: 3857: 3777: 3625: 3252:

template is for BLPs which need additional references, so is more closely related to

3007: 2985: 2852: 2736: 2685: 2665: 2621: 2458: 2381: 2363: 2155: 2114:

Certainly whether it should be one blank line or two is not a tremendous deal, but a

1663:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Swapping_order_of_categories_and_stub_templates

1016: 969: 723: 163: 125: 6104:

I suspect that WikiProjects or other organised collections of editors should define

906:

I thought you'd already agreed that you couln't tell if Lougba was actually a town?

6075: 5972: 5942: 5923: 5895: 5877: 5759: 5601: 5335: 5305:

considered this colon to be: erroneous and confusing and, consequently, removed it.

5302: 5245: 5094: 4229: 3605: 3589: 3568: 2937:

of 60 per year, a new category for a specific year cannot be justified. I see that

2250: 1742: 1557: 1012: 985: 5162:

Change Motto: From:Jesus says we're allowed to kick your ass To: Persistence Pays

2664:

Is it complete though? When did it come into use and when did it become obsolete?

1628:

I asked for an uninvolved admin to read the discussion and provide an outcome. --

1609:

Should AWB tag lists as stub when they are really small (i.e. have less than 300

5580:- by "stub categories" do you mean categories containing stubs by subject (e.g. 5157: 5098: 4830: 4693: 3869:, the use of the tag for articles should be avoided over certain article size. 2895: 2097: 1891: 1812:

but had assumed that they were helping out by making the article easier to edit.

1778: 1375: 1254: 891: 760:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

616: 558: 343: 271:

snarky) HTML comments in many articles, designed to preserve those blank lines.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3620:

Has anyone ever heard or used this term? If so...or if not...make a comment at

5521: 5468: 5377: 5319: 4255: 1159: 397:

Definitely not. That stub template with only one blank line looks fine to me.

6029:

part of a tree, like per year or decade or country or state categories, etc.

552:

change the guideline to "one space". The examples given above for Chile, are

6138: 5733: 5307:

Therfore I would like to come to know other readers' opinions on this issue.

3531: 3426: 3329: 3318: 3231: 3201: 3139: 3044: 2957:) go to a particular decade; I'm not aware of any that are year-specific. -- 2270: 1693:

Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(proposals)#Eliminate_stub_templates_completely

1667: 1577: 1427: 1053: 918: 830: 422: 4470: 3909:

Even long articles can be stub if they are otherwise very rudimentary, per

3810:

Thanks! I assumed there was some more official process to it, but nope. :)

5689:

criteria are low enough as it is, with 4-5 articles usually being enough.

4413: 4348: 4287: 3043:

on the issue which looks reasonable as a basis for advice. Any comments? ~

380:

has none. I don't think that being without a gap is such a big problem. --

4092: 4062: 4029: 4014: 3969: 3954: 3870: 3473:

written on the subject, then it's a stub; if there isn't, then it isn't.

3454: 2732: 2454: 854:

for instance. There are a lot of USAID case studies on them on the web.♦

5484:

True, merging is always an option, if there is a suitable merge target.

4919:. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — 2789:"emigrated to the United States in 1909." should probably be "...1919." 1956:

name its sources), but the presence of a list of sources isn't required.

1808:). After dropping them a polite note, we found that they didn't know of 4421: 4356: 4295: 3944: 3891: 487:

and such. I remember that when I was a newbie, I briefly thought that

4527: 4404:{{block indent| {{cooking-stub}} {{Egypt-stub}} {{health-stub}} }} 2444:. (Stub categories are distinguished categories, I think we now say.) 2226:

Knowledge discovery practices and emerging applications of data mining

5520:

arguments regarding the perceived problem and/or potential solution.

4535: 2646: 1415:

which can be added to an incomplete list, and there's the less-known

4651:

Not in my view. I've removed this change. It needs to be discussed.

3495:

may be of use when trying to judge whether an article is a stub". --

1773:

Headings, lists, pictures, references etc generally don't count, so

911:

Anyway...as I suggested at the top - it would be best to comment on

699:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Tag_for_stubbed_pages?

5514:. The responses didn't really support any particular outcome here. 4665:

Just a thought, why don't we just build in the extra blank line in

2545:) from the page. Stub codes are often at the bottom of the webpage. 5990:

Correcting grammar and punctuation definitely counts as editing.

4478: 2890:

A stub tag, then, makes the person who places it feel superior --

1231:

added to the documentation that lists are excluded by stub tagging

6073:, it might have been more productive to split by type or era.) 5093:

According to the page's protection level you should be able to

1875:

the instructions be a little more clear? Thanks for your help.

5798:

of 60 articles. This threshold is modified in the case of the

5290:/ 2nd paragraph / 1st sentence there is a lengthy enumeration. 5180:

Change Athletic Director From: Andrew Salazar To: Kyle Howell

5119: 5017: 4848: 3656:

Knowledge (XXG):Do not confuse stub status with non-notability

3365: 2752: 822:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability#Articles need multiple sources

739: 25: 5730:

Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(proposals)#Get_rid_of_stub_tags

4776:

Oh, sorry. I should’ve read the entire page. Thanks, though!

1763:

isn't a stub. Perhaps the accepted size is creeping though -

1588:

Do we need some uninvolved admin to close the discussion? --

4699:. This article is the only article in which I have seen it. 1977:

and I came across this essay that might answer my question.

483:

For the same reason, I also prefer labeling what follows as

3622:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Permastub

480:

display differently, but to make editing easier for humans.

4424:

article about preparation methods for food and drink is a

4359:

article about preparation methods for food and drink is a

4298:

article about preparation methods for food and drink is a

3325:

Knowledge (XXG):Stub#Creating_and_improving_a_stub_article

2221:. While they in fact talk of "1,500 characters of prose", 1489:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Lists#Can lists be stubs?

201:

was not I as I think. I find that very arguable. See also

1691:

Given no discussion here, I have raised this proposal at

368:(if it were normal height it'd be too narrow to see). On 5375:

I will have to study your reference. Thank you for this.

4204:

I was made to give up biology when I was 12 I'm afraid.

2589:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Redundant_film_stub_tags

5260: 4638: 4616: 4613: 4610: 4607: 4543: 4486: 4429: 4364: 4303: 3831:

remember this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. :-)

2612:

Right, am thinking of running a de-stubbing contest at

2429: 2428:

First, please confirm or correct my understanding. The

2341: 2015: 1230: 1188: 907: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 360:

The stub template with tallest image that I know of is

194: 190: 5998:

https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Medicine.html

4279:

Here's a template demo, first with just the stub tag:

3491:, particularly the parenthesis "the user essay on the 2982:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 43

2345:. What makes you think that it should go elsewhere? -- 1329:

Okay, to take this as a fresh issue, My thoughts are:

606:. However, with a navbox, it does look too bunched up 5288:

Knowledge (XXG):Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub

2436:

should be reverted. That page should be in both cats

5732:

which began on 21 June. I hope the rest of you did.

5667:?? The RFC first got advertised on November 3, 2020 5165:

Change Authority: From: Jesus To: Diocese of Tucson

1650:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1127:

The problem with a no consensus outcome is that the

1113:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

5063:tags on this page without content in them (see the 4688:

Can one article transclude multiple stub templates?

3562:

Discussion of articles that can never be de-stubbed

1364:

The kind of expansion/work lists need is different.

185:

Two blank lines prior to stub templates - revisited

5845:) 05:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC) originally opened – 3743:Encyclopedia Britanica, written hardcover edition. 1952:have references (indeed, even a one-sentence Stub 463:Redrose's "one or two blank lines" works for me. 6046:to permitting significant smaller stub tags, and 1644:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 1072:Shekhar Chander is Lecturer in Computer Science 4845:Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018 4125:tell the reader nothing about the genus itself. 3058:Some tags added to stubs are quite ridiculous - 2248:that anything over 300 words is not a stub. -- 1534:to be of use, and this is not determined by how 6069:All excellent points. (However, in the case of 6024:This should definitely be lowered. The regular 4937:do we need two blank lines before the template? 3654:I've put together a short but related essay at 3362:Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015 3002:...will be run again in August. Signups are at 2316:I just tried to label my first page as a stub ( 1802:Category:Railway stations in Greater Manchester 2933:First, how many are there? If there are not a 2749:Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014 5792: 4563: 4506: 4449: 4384: 4323: 3911:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject assessment#Grades 2684:The infobox says it was introd8uced in 1985. 2051:I agree with the long standing consensus. -- 1251:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Stub sorting 1116:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 693:Stubbing existing articles: seeking precedent 507:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style (layout) 8: 6112:, then there should be a matching stub type 2005: 6158:RfC tag removed by bot due to inactivity. – 5294:Therefore I added a colon in above article. 5116:Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019 2976:Bot update of stubs that are also redirects 1602:The closing admin should decide two things 5156:I am the current principal of the school ( 5014:Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2019 4570: 4556: 4513: 4499: 4456: 4442: 4391: 4377: 4330: 4316: 4178:World Checklist of Selected Plant Families 3751: 3722: 2728:I agree with the general remarks in reply. 2149:Opinions - When is a stub no longer a stub 372:it's given two blank lines beforehand, on 322:I agree, a double space is not needed. -- 5786:On determining if a stub type is useful, 4250:markup for something that's not a list. 3453:I've been challenged over the article on 5356:! This solution has my complete consent. 5309:This, by the way, does not only concern 5299:thanked me for this colon. Thank you CG. 4915:for discussing improvements to the page 4246:to do it, that's a no-go. It's abuse of 3489:Knowledge (XXG):Stub#How big is too big? 2816:for discussing improvements to the page 2382:Template:Stub#How is a stub identified? 939:Redlinks more informative in some cases 421:has the stubs before the cats, whereas 6101: 5394:Knowledge (XXG):Stub is rather verbose 4056: 3885: 3268:. The BLP equivalent of the latter is 2847:Total number of stubs on en.wikipedia? 2318:Court of Justice of the European Union 2219:Knowledge (XXG):Did_you_know#DYK_rules 1800:to every page in the subcategories of 1508:I suggest that a few more people read 1477: 915:to avoid splitting up the discussion. 758:Do not edit the contents of this page. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5779:RfC: What should be the minimum size? 5504:RfC: Minimum size for stub categories 4888:Student Population is 550 on average 3948:gives a list that is the size of the 3606:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3569:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2909:Hip hop song stub categories by year? 2251:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1725:Has the definition of a stub changed? 1606:Should lists be tagged with stub tag? 7: 5537:The following discussion is closed. 5282:Colon before a (lengthy) enumeration 5171:Change Enrollment From: 140 To: 300 4524: 4522: 4467: 4465: 4410: 4408: 4345: 4343: 4284: 4282: 3658:. Please feel free to contribute.-- 3004:Knowledge (XXG):Stub Contest/Entries 2875:currently contains 1,841,901 pages. 2335:It's supposed to go at the end, see 2312:Where does the stub tag actually go? 1474:User talk:Hmains#Lists are not stubs 1293:User talk:Hmains#Lists are not stubs 1107:The following discussion is closed. 197:on the argument that the outcome of 5055: 4242:Using what markup? If you're using 3680:(SFC) is a proposed task force for 3162:We used to have a special template 2824:; but please note that the article 2417:The guideline doesn't say that all 2189:recommended as one rule of thumb. 4542:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by 4485:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by 4428:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by 4363:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by 4302:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by 2641:Removing stub status permanently ? 2583:A disagreement over film stub tags 1910:received any feedback. Thank you. 1796:GreaterManchester-railstation-stub 24: 4731:All right. Thanks for the reply! 2006:It's better two lines or no line? 5659:The discussion above is closed. 5195: 5123: 5085: 5021: 4903: 4852: 4526: 4469: 4412: 4347: 4286: 3417: 3369: 2804: 2756: 2442:American children's writer stubs 2229:. Idea Group Inc (IGI). p. 325. 1552:I also agree it would be better 743: 29: 4958:23:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 4928:17:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC) 4898:15:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC) 3772:Removing stub-class assessment 3703:08:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC) 2820:. Please make your request at 1705:15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 1345:and this is often poorly done. 1149:or give it much weight at all. 1: 6151:09:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) 6127:17:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC) 6089:23:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC) 6061:23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC) 5937:23:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 5908:21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 5386:02:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC) 5344:02:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC) 5328:20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC) 5008:21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4839:03:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4661:09:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC) 4646:00:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC) 4628:00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC) 4602:23:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC) 4581: 4238:15:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC) 4214:11:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC) 4190:10:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC) 4156:10:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC) 4135:21:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC) 4120:21:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC) 4071:10:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC) 4044:07:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC) 3640:23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 3616:22:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 3603:Seems about right, thanks! -- 3599:15:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 3579:14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 3556:21:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC) 3540:16:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC) 3443:22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC) 3412:22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC) 2118:way (a policy) rather than a 1990:03:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 1720:22:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 1686:07:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 1062:20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 933:17:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC) 820:Please comment over there: 419:Laguna del Laja National Park 374:Laguna del Laja National Park 304:Who can change the CSS, btw? 175:22:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 154:16:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 6183:05:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 6039:12:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC) 6010:00:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 5986:06:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 5959:01:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 5891:00:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC) 5870:23:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 5715:00:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC) 5699:13:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 5679:13:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 5654:18:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC) 5530:10:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 5277:15:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 3841:08:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC) 3820:03:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC) 3806:19:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 3790:17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC) 3766:20:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC) 3737:17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC) 3526:18:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 3508:17:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 3483:15:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 3467:00:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC) 2997:Knowledge (XXG):Stub Contest 2904:17:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC) 2841:20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2799:16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC) 2720:02:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) 2691:20:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 2680:19:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 2659:17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 2636:13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 2199:06:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 2180:08:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 2164:22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 2106:22:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 2085:19:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 2061:15:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 2047:13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 2028:20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 1969:19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC) 1920:01:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 1900:04:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC) 1885:04:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) 1866:04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC) 1851:03:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC) 1487:) I have posted a notice at 1131:to default to is unclear. 1046:21:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1025:16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 1006:10:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 994:06:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 978:00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC) 900:17:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 885:16:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 861:21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 845:22:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 503:) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 137:22:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 115:04:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 5622:04:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 5255:Not considered or secondary 5150:to reactivate your request. 5138:has been answered. Set the 5048:to reactivate your request. 5036:has been answered. Set the 4981:10:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC) 4879:to reactivate your request. 4867:has been answered. Set the 4824:04:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC) 4680:20:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 4101:18:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 4023:23:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 3997:21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 3963:18:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 3930:17:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 3905:16:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 3879:14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 3695:........................... 3396:to reactivate your request. 3384:has been answered. Set the 2885:07:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 2783:to reactivate your request. 2771:has been answered. Set the 2601:19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 2573:00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC) 2438:American children's writers 1828:14:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 1806:Manchester Victoria station 1787:05:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 1751:02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 1638:14:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 1623:08:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 1598:23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 1582:01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 1220:17:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1208:17:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1168:18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC) 6199: 5773:20:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 5752:18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 5313:article and location, but 4801:instead of two blank lines 4521: 4464: 4407: 4342: 4281: 3348:21:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 3312:15:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 3240:15:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 3178:five years ago, following 2991:19:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC) 2873:Category:All stub articles 2867:00:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 2741:20:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC) 2614:User:Casliber/Stub contest 2607:User:Casliber/Stub contest 2448:User talk: HelicopterLlama 2403:15:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC) 2376:15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC) 2358:19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 2330:18:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 1566:21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 1548:14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1523:20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 1504:15:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 1465:14:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 1446:10:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 1399:09:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 1384:09:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 1322:08:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 1308:19:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 1279:18:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 1263:12:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 1249:policy in the archives of 1243:18:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 964:When a reader searches on 485: 5613:04:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 5594:20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 5582:Category:Medusozoan stubs 5575:19:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 5424:Unexpandable short stubs? 5419:00:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 5249:22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC) 5216:21:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC) 5190:20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC) 3586:Knowledge (XXG):Permastub 3195:23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 3158:22:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 3053:14:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 3022:22:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 2892:this article is too brief 2702:Generic top-level domains 2555:14:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 2384:) "Place a stub template 2306:00:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC) 2289:18:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC) 2261:12:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC) 2223:A. Senthil Kumar (2011). 1657:Eliminate stub templates? 1472:In view of my comment at 1205:Penny for your thoughts? 1093:09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 735:10:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 712:10:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 685:19:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 662:19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 643:09:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 629:04:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 590:22:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 567:22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 538:22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 522:17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 473:16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 447:16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 407:22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 393:16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 356:15:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 334:12:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 314:14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 300:14:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 283:13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 261:13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 245:13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 230:10:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 215:09:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stub 5802:stub category used by a 5757:First I've heard of it. 5661:Please do not modify it. 5617:Maybe 200 characters. -- 5539:Please do not modify it. 5317:articles here in the WP. 5239:14:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 5110:00:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC) 5080:00:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC) 4786:22:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4763:22:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4741:22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4720:22:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4709:20:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4339:Now, with the template: 3776:I'm looking at the page 3686:Draft:Stubs for creation 3668:13:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 2941:2010s-hiphop-single-stub 2532:14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2510:09:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2489:08:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2463:18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 1647:Please do not modify it. 1556:to mark lists as stubs. 1374:bot assessments also. -- 1141:The June 1st edit which 1110:Please do not modify it. 199:this archived discussion 6071:Category:Aircraft stubs 5816:Category:Aircraft stubs 5724:"Get rid of stub tags"? 5494:13:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 5480:13:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 5457:13:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 5442:01:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 3170:but that was merged to 2970:10:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 2927:07:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 2822:Talk:Gleb W. Derujinsky 2421:should be in 'permcat' 1575:another discussion.) - 1233:. Is this accurate? -- 720:User:Grutness/Shortened 573:I chose them precisely 290:Do we have an example? 5808: 5095:edit the page yourself 4538:-related article is a 4481:-related article is a 2132:Lindberg G Williams Jr 2123:September 2013 (UTC) 1210: 812:Need more than one ref 3682:Articles for creation 3493:Croughton-London rule 3402:Add {{pp-vandalism}} 2645:Consider the article 2116:universal and uniform 1765:Otto Miller (catcher) 1481:uses "only FL, List, 1192: 1173:Regarding the close, 1068:About Shekhar Chander 756:of past discussions. 614:looks too far apart. 42:of past discussions. 5788:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 5400:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 5398:I'd like to suggest 5297:User:Collins Gatheru 5205:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 5136:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 5034:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 4917:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 4865:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 4619:, and yes, they use 4170:World Spider Catalog 3438:See what I have done 3382:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 2828:is not protected. -- 2818:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 2616:(in the vein of the 2495:Removing stub status 1510:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 1479:WP:WPLIST#Assessment 1291:. It all started at 704:William M. Connolley 702:precedent for this? 5174:REMOVE Fight Song 3033:previous discussion 2413:Stubcat and permcat 1100:Can lists be stubs? 604:makes no difference 548:I would definitely 5540: 4634:1 or 2 blank lines 4168:are listed in the 3678:Stubs for creation 3673:Stubs for creation 2826:Gleb W. Derujinsky 2769:Gleb W. Derujinsky 2716:Talk to me, Billy 2432:of stub biography 648:Some earlier tests 6148: 6136: 6124:GhostInTheMachine 6117:WW2-aircraft-stub 6087: 5984: 5935: 5889: 5790:currently reads: 5771: 5611: 5538: 5154: 5153: 5052: 5051: 4955: 4883: 4882: 4551: 4550: 4494: 4493: 4437: 4436: 4372: 4371: 4311: 4310: 3827:Flipping Mackerel 3812:Flipping Mackerel 3782:Flipping Mackerel 3768: 3756:comment added by 3739: 3727:comment added by 3708:Stub: Individuals 3400: 3399: 3216:. The discussion 3166:unreferenced stub 2925: 2787: 2786: 2593:Shawn in Montreal 2235:978-1-60960-069-3 2144: 2130:comment added by 2016:rollback me twice 1836:Stubs and sources 1468: 1096: 1079:comment added by 931: 843: 809: 808: 768: 767: 762:current talk page 731: 688: 665: 525: 495:were redundant. 286: 264: 171: 157: 133: 118: 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 6190: 6179: 6174: 6149: 6146: 6145: 6143: 6134: 6121: 6115: 6079: 5993: 5976: 5927: 5881: 5866: 5861: 5843: 5838: 5763: 5749: 5740: 5650: 5645: 5605: 5591: 5589: 5571: 5566: 5472: 5433: 5199: 5198: 5177:REMOVE Nickname 5168:REMOVE Chaplain 5145: 5141: 5127: 5126: 5120: 5089: 5088: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5062: 5043: 5039: 5025: 5024: 5018: 4969: 4953: 4949: 4947: 4926: 4907: 4906: 4874: 4870: 4856: 4855: 4849: 4783: 4775: 4772: 4752: 4738: 4730: 4706: 4674: 4668: 4622: 4600: 4572: 4565: 4558: 4530: 4523: 4515: 4508: 4501: 4473: 4466: 4458: 4451: 4444: 4416: 4409: 4393: 4386: 4379: 4351: 4344: 4332: 4325: 4318: 4290: 4283: 4275: 4273: 4267: 4248:description list 4245: 4166: 4089: 4054: 4033: 4007: 3973: 3940: 3919: 3830: 3694: 3612: 3575: 3499: 3449:Lists and tables 3440: 3430: 3421: 3420: 3391: 3387: 3373: 3372: 3366: 3345: 3336: 3323:The guidance at 3322: 3303: 3294: 3283: 3275: 3267: 3259: 3251: 3229: 3223: 3215: 3209: 3205: 3186: 3177: 3169: 3155: 3146: 3137: 3131: 3127: 3121: 3117: 3111: 3107: 3101: 3097: 3091: 3087: 3081: 3077: 3071: 3067: 3061: 2988: 2961: 2947:15 transclusions 2944: 2924: 2922: 2832: 2808: 2807: 2778: 2774: 2760: 2759: 2753: 2717: 2711: 2706: 2700: 2544: 2523: 2394: 2349: 2344: 2286: 2277: 2257: 2246: 2244: 2242: 2158: 2143: 2124: 2038: 1982:Kelly Marie 0812 1912:Kelly Marie 0812 1877:Kelly Marie 0812 1843:Kelly Marie 0812 1819: 1799: 1683: 1674: 1649: 1495: 1463: 1443: 1434: 1424: 1418: 1414: 1408: 1405:We already have 1299: 1206: 1200: 1112: 1095: 1073: 1003: 930: 928: 922: 916: 858: 852:Communes of Mali 842: 840: 834: 828: 795: 770: 769: 747: 746: 740: 729: 683: 660: 625: 619: 581: 513: 504: 494: 490: 486: 438: 384: 370:Iquique Province 367: 352: 346: 326: 281: 259: 225: 189:I made a change 169: 152: 131: 113: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6198: 6197: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6189: 6188: 6187: 6177: 6172: 6139: 6137: 6133: 6119: 6113: 5991: 5864: 5859: 5841: 5836: 5781: 5743: 5734: 5726: 5665: 5664: 5648: 5643: 5587: 5585: 5569: 5564: 5543: 5534: 5533: 5532: 5506: 5470: 5431: 5426: 5396: 5284: 5257: 5227: 5196: 5143: 5139: 5124: 5118: 5086: 5072:Lawrence Stueck 5060: 5058: 5056: 5041: 5037: 5022: 5016: 4963: 4951: 4945: 4939: 4920: 4904: 4872: 4868: 4853: 4847: 4803: 4779: 4770: 4767: 4747: 4734: 4724: 4702: 4690: 4672: 4666: 4636: 4620: 4598: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4520: 4519: 4463: 4462: 4405: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4337: 4336: 4271: 4265: 4259: 4243: 4226: 4160: 4083: 4048: 4027: 4001: 3985:WP:PLANTS stubs 3967: 3934: 3914: 3853: 3824: 3774: 3745: 3710: 3690: 3675: 3652: 3614: 3610: 3595:generic_hipster 3577: 3573: 3564: 3497: 3451: 3439: 3436: 3428: 3418: 3404:115.188.191.246 3389: 3385: 3370: 3364: 3339: 3330: 3316: 3301: 3288: 3277: 3269: 3261: 3253: 3245: 3227: 3221: 3213: 3207: 3199: 3184: 3171: 3163: 3149: 3140: 3135: 3129: 3125: 3119: 3115: 3109: 3105: 3099: 3095: 3089: 3085: 3079: 3075: 3069: 3065: 3059: 3029: 3000: 2986: 2980:A bot request, 2978: 2959: 2938: 2920: 2911: 2849: 2830: 2805: 2776: 2772: 2757: 2751: 2715: 2709: 2704: 2698: 2643: 2610: 2585: 2538: 2521: 2497: 2434:Mike Berenstain 2415: 2392: 2387:at the very end 2347: 2340: 2314: 2296:than silence. 2280: 2271: 2259: 2255: 2240: 2238: 2236: 2222: 2156: 2151: 2125: 2036: 2008: 1838: 1817: 1793: 1727: 1677: 1668: 1659: 1654: 1645: 1493: 1437: 1428: 1422: 1416: 1412: 1410:incomplete list 1406: 1297: 1204: 1196: 1108: 1102: 1074: 1070: 1038:Adriaan Joubert 1033: 1001: 941: 926: 920: 917: 856: 838: 832: 829: 814: 791: 744: 695: 623: 617: 600:two blank lines 579: 511: 492: 488: 484: 436: 417:aforementioned 382: 361: 350: 344: 324: 223: 203:this discussion 187: 100: 98:Usability stats 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6196: 6194: 6186: 6185: 6153: 6129: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6091: 6064: 6063: 6041: 6021: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 6013: 6012: 5994: 5946: 5913: 5912: 5911: 5910: 5822:RfC extended – 5820: 5819: 5812: 5780: 5777: 5776: 5775: 5725: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5624: 5619:ThesenatorO5-2 5615: 5596: 5588:Rhododendrites 5544: 5535: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5505: 5502: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5425: 5422: 5395: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5376: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5347: 5346: 5318: 5308: 5306: 5300: 5295: 5293: 5291: 5283: 5280: 5256: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5226: 5223: 5221: 5219: 5218: 5152: 5151: 5128: 5117: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5050: 5049: 5026: 5015: 5012: 5011: 5010: 4984: 4983: 4938: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4881: 4880: 4857: 4846: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4812:Template:Clear 4807:Template:Clear 4802: 4799:Template:Clear 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4689: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4635: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4596: 4575: 4574: 4567: 4560: 4552: 4549: 4548: 4531: 4518: 4517: 4510: 4503: 4495: 4492: 4491: 4474: 4461: 4460: 4453: 4446: 4438: 4435: 4434: 4417: 4406: 4403: 4396: 4395: 4388: 4381: 4373: 4370: 4369: 4352: 4341: 4335: 4334: 4327: 4320: 4312: 4309: 4308: 4291: 4225: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4174:The Plant List 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 3982: 3977: 3852: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3773: 3770: 3744: 3741: 3709: 3706: 3688:. Cheers! -- 3674: 3671: 3651: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3604: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3450: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3437: 3398: 3397: 3374: 3363: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3291:subst:prod blp 3073:lead too short 3028: 3027:Stubs and tags 3025: 2999: 2994: 2977: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2930: 2929: 2918:, but still). 2910: 2907: 2888: 2887: 2848: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2785: 2784: 2761: 2750: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2729: 2723: 2722: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2651:50.136.247.190 2642: 2639: 2609: 2604: 2584: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2496: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2322:86.164.194.233 2313: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2292: 2291: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2249: 2234: 2215:readable prose 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2183: 2182: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2014:. But someone 2007: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1957: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1813: 1775:750 Motor Club 1770: 1769: 1759: 1758: 1726: 1723: 1708: 1707: 1658: 1655: 1653: 1652: 1626: 1625: 1607: 1587: 1585: 1584: 1568: 1550: 1525: 1506: 1470: 1469: 1449: 1448: 1402: 1401: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1339: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1310: 1282: 1281: 1266: 1265: 1226: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1151: 1150: 1139: 1136: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1103: 1101: 1098: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1027: 997: 996: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 940: 937: 936: 935: 909: 904: 903: 902: 813: 810: 807: 806: 801: 796: 789: 784: 779: 776: 766: 765: 748: 738: 737: 694: 691: 689: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 645: 608:with one space 596:one blank line 570: 569: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 481: 477: 476: 475: 461: 452: 451: 450: 449: 432: 411: 410: 409: 364:Chile-geo-stub 337: 336: 325:Basilicofresco 319: 318: 317: 316: 302: 287: 268: 267: 266: 265: 247: 186: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 158: 119: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6195: 6184: 6180: 6175: 6169: 6168: 6165: 6162: 6157: 6154: 6152: 6144: 6142: 6130: 6128: 6125: 6118: 6111: 6107: 6103: 6099: 6096: 6095: 6090: 6085: 6084: 6078: 6077: 6072: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6065: 6062: 6058: 6054: 6049: 6045: 6042: 6040: 6036: 6032: 6027: 6023: 6022: 6011: 6007: 6003: 5999: 5995: 5989: 5988: 5987: 5982: 5981: 5975: 5974: 5969: 5965: 5962: 5961: 5960: 5956: 5952: 5947: 5944: 5940: 5939: 5938: 5933: 5932: 5926: 5925: 5920: 5917: 5916: 5915: 5914: 5909: 5905: 5901: 5897: 5894: 5893: 5892: 5887: 5886: 5880: 5879: 5874: 5873: 5872: 5871: 5867: 5862: 5856: 5855: 5852: 5849: 5844: 5839: 5833: 5832: 5829: 5826: 5818:into decades? 5817: 5813: 5810: 5809: 5807: 5805: 5801: 5797: 5791: 5789: 5784: 5778: 5774: 5769: 5768: 5762: 5761: 5756: 5755: 5754: 5753: 5750: 5748: 5747: 5741: 5739: 5738: 5731: 5723: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5707: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5696: 5692: 5688: 5683: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5676: 5672: 5671: 5662: 5655: 5651: 5646: 5640: 5639: 5636: 5633: 5628: 5625: 5623: 5620: 5616: 5614: 5609: 5608:I'm listening 5604: 5603: 5597: 5595: 5590: 5583: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5572: 5567: 5561: 5560: 5557: 5554: 5549: 5542: 5531: 5527: 5523: 5518: 5513: 5503: 5495: 5491: 5487: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5477: 5473: 5465: 5460: 5459: 5458: 5454: 5450: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5440: 5438: 5434: 5423: 5421: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5407: 5404: 5401: 5393: 5387: 5383: 5379: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5355: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5325: 5321: 5316: 5312: 5304: 5298: 5289: 5281: 5279: 5278: 5274: 5270: 5264: 5261: 5254: 5250: 5247: 5243: 5242: 5241: 5240: 5236: 5232: 5231:179.228.66.29 5224: 5222: 5217: 5214: 5212: 5211: 5206: 5202: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5182:24.249.172.61 5178: 5175: 5172: 5169: 5166: 5163: 5160: 5158: 5149: 5146:parameter to 5137: 5133: 5129: 5122: 5121: 5115: 5111: 5108: 5106: 5105: 5100: 5096: 5092: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5066: 5047: 5044:parameter to 5035: 5031: 5027: 5020: 5019: 5013: 5009: 5005: 5001: 4997: 4993: 4992: 4986: 4985: 4982: 4978: 4974: 4973:Peter coxhead 4967: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4956: 4954: 4948: 4936: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4924: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4895: 4891: 4886: 4878: 4875:parameter to 4866: 4862: 4858: 4851: 4850: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4808: 4800: 4797: 4787: 4784: 4782: 4773: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4760: 4756: 4751: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4739: 4737: 4728: 4727:Donald Albury 4723: 4722: 4721: 4718: 4717:Donald Albury 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4707: 4705: 4698: 4696: 4687: 4681: 4678: 4671: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4653:Peter coxhead 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4644: 4640: 4633: 4629: 4626: 4618: 4615: 4612: 4609: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4593: 4590: 4587: 4586: 4573: 4568: 4566: 4561: 4559: 4554: 4553: 4547: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4532: 4529: 4525: 4516: 4511: 4509: 4504: 4502: 4497: 4496: 4490: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4475: 4472: 4468: 4459: 4454: 4452: 4447: 4445: 4440: 4439: 4433: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4418: 4415: 4411: 4402: 4394: 4389: 4387: 4382: 4380: 4375: 4374: 4368: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4353: 4350: 4346: 4340: 4333: 4328: 4326: 4321: 4319: 4314: 4313: 4307: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4292: 4289: 4285: 4280: 4277: 4270: 4263: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4223: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4182:Peter coxhead 4179: 4175: 4171: 4164: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4153: 4149: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4127:Peter coxhead 4123: 4122: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4108: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4087: 4082: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4059: 4052: 4051:Peter coxhead 4047: 4046: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4036:Peter coxhead 4031: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4011: 4010:United States 4005: 4004:Peter coxhead 4000: 3999: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3989:Peter coxhead 3986: 3980: 3975: 3971: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3951: 3950:United States 3947: 3946: 3938: 3937:Peter coxhead 3933: 3932: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3918: 3912: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3897:Peter coxhead 3895:for example. 3894: 3893: 3887: 3886:simply absurd 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3867:United States 3864: 3859: 3858:United States 3850: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3833:Peter coxhead 3828: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3798:Peter coxhead 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3778:Luc Plamondon 3771: 3769: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3758:186.91.63.146 3755: 3748: 3742: 3740: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3729:186.91.63.146 3726: 3719: 3716: 3713: 3707: 3705: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3693: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3672: 3670: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3660:Paul McDonald 3657: 3650:Related essay 3649: 3641: 3637: 3634: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3613: 3607: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3597: 3596: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3570: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3528: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3448: 3444: 3441: 3434: 3432: 3431: 3424: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3395: 3392:parameter to 3383: 3379: 3375: 3368: 3367: 3361: 3349: 3346: 3344: 3343: 3337: 3335: 3334: 3326: 3320: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3298: 3292: 3286: 3281: 3280:BLP unsourced 3273: 3272:BLP unsourced 3265: 3257: 3249: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3230:from stubs. ~ 3226: 3219: 3212: 3203: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3181: 3175: 3167: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3156: 3154: 3153: 3147: 3145: 3144: 3134: 3124: 3114: 3104: 3094: 3084: 3074: 3064: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3026: 3024: 3023: 3019: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3005: 2998: 2995: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2983: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2942: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2928: 2923: 2917: 2916:WP:OTHERSTUFF 2913: 2912: 2908: 2906: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2858: 2854: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2782: 2779:parameter to 2770: 2766: 2762: 2755: 2754: 2748: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2721: 2718: 2712: 2703: 2696: 2692: 2689: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2677: 2674: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2640: 2638: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2608: 2605: 2603: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2591:. thank you, 2590: 2582: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2542: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2518: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2451: 2449: 2445: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2426: 2424: 2420: 2412: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2389: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2368:86.143.168.70 2365: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2343: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2285: 2284: 2278: 2276: 2275: 2268: 2267: 2262: 2258: 2252: 2237: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2159: 2148: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1944:doesn't mean 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1835: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1797: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1738: 1736: 1732: 1724: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712:PhoenixSummon 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1682: 1681: 1675: 1673: 1672: 1664: 1656: 1651: 1648: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1573: 1569: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1511: 1507: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1490: 1486: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1451: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1442: 1441: 1435: 1433: 1432: 1421: 1411: 1404: 1403: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1366: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1227: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1207: 1201: 1199: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1130: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1111: 1105: 1104: 1099: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 995: 991: 987: 982: 981: 980: 979: 975: 971: 967: 955: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 938: 934: 929: 924: 923: 914: 910: 908: 905: 901: 897: 893: 888: 887: 886: 882: 878: 874: 871:to apply the 870: 865: 864: 863: 862: 859: 853: 847: 846: 841: 836: 835: 825: 823: 818: 811: 805: 802: 800: 797: 794: 790: 788: 785: 783: 780: 777: 775: 772: 771: 763: 759: 755: 754: 749: 742: 741: 736: 733: 732: 725: 721: 716: 715: 714: 713: 709: 705: 700: 692: 690: 686: 681: 680: 677: 663: 658: 657: 654: 649: 646: 644: 640: 636: 632: 631: 630: 627: 626: 620: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 576: 572: 571: 568: 564: 560: 555: 551: 547: 546: 539: 535: 531: 527: 526: 523: 519: 515: 508: 502: 498: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 448: 444: 440: 433: 429: 424: 420: 415: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 394: 390: 386: 379: 375: 371: 365: 359: 358: 357: 354: 353: 347: 339: 338: 335: 331: 327: 321: 320: 315: 311: 307: 303: 301: 297: 293: 289: 288: 284: 279: 278: 275: 269: 262: 257: 256: 253: 248: 246: 242: 238: 233: 232: 231: 228: 226: 219: 218: 217: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 184: 176: 173: 172: 165: 160: 159: 155: 150: 149: 146: 140: 139: 138: 135: 134: 127: 122: 121: 120: 116: 111: 110: 107: 97: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6166: 6163: 6160: 6155: 6140: 6110:WW2 aircraft 6109: 6105: 6097: 6081: 6074: 6053:WhatamIdoing 6047: 6043: 6002:WhatamIdoing 5978: 5971: 5967: 5964:WhatamIdoing 5951:WhatamIdoing 5929: 5922: 5919:WhatamIdoing 5900:WhatamIdoing 5883: 5876: 5853: 5850: 5847: 5830: 5827: 5824: 5821: 5799: 5795: 5793: 5785: 5782: 5765: 5758: 5745: 5744: 5736: 5735: 5727: 5705: 5704: 5669: 5668: 5666: 5660: 5637: 5634: 5631: 5626: 5600: 5558: 5555: 5552: 5545: 5536: 5515: 5512:No consensus 5511: 5463: 5429: 5427: 5408: 5405: 5399: 5397: 5314: 5310: 5303:User:Niccast 5285: 5265: 5258: 5228: 5220: 5209: 5200: 5179: 5176: 5173: 5170: 5167: 5164: 5161: 5155: 5147: 5132:edit request 5103: 5090: 5061:<ref: --> 5057:Cite error: 5053: 5045: 5030:edit request 4995: 4990: 4988: 4943: 4940: 4934: 4922: 4911:this is the 4908: 4890:163.41.25.43 4887: 4884: 4876: 4861:edit request 4804: 4780: 4735: 4703: 4694: 4691: 4677:Black Falcon 4643:Black Falcon 4637: 4625:Black Falcon 4584: 4579: 4544:expanding it 4533: 4487:expanding it 4476: 4430:expanding it 4419: 4400: 4365:expanding it 4354: 4338: 4304:expanding it 4293: 4278: 4269:cooking-stub 4262:block indent 4241: 4227: 3943: 3890: 3854: 3851:No set size? 3775: 3752:— Preceding 3749: 3746: 3723:— Preceding 3720: 3717: 3714: 3711: 3691: 3677: 3676: 3653: 3632: 3593: 3584:Do you mean 3565: 3529: 3514: 3452: 3427: 3422: 3401: 3393: 3378:edit request 3341: 3340: 3332: 3331: 3284: 3264:unreferenced 3225:unreferenced 3174:unreferenced 3151: 3150: 3142: 3141: 3063:Lead missing 3037:TexasAndroid 3030: 3014: 3001: 2979: 2934: 2919: 2891: 2889: 2859: 2850: 2812:this is the 2809: 2788: 2780: 2765:edit request 2672: 2644: 2628: 2618:Core Contest 2611: 2586: 2565:WhatamIdoing 2541:journal-stub 2498: 2452: 2446: 2427: 2419:France stubs 2416: 2385: 2315: 2298:WhatamIdoing 2282: 2281: 2273: 2272: 2239:. Retrieved 2225: 2214: 2191:WhatamIdoing 2154: 2152: 2126:— Preceding 2119: 2115: 2077:WhatamIdoing 2053:Magioladitis 2011: 2009: 1961:WhatamIdoing 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1858:WhatamIdoing 1839: 1739: 1734: 1731:considerably 1730: 1728: 1709: 1679: 1678: 1670: 1669: 1660: 1646: 1643: 1630:Magioladitis 1627: 1615:Magioladitis 1610: 1601: 1590:Magioladitis 1586: 1576: 1553: 1540:EncycloPetey 1535: 1531: 1526: 1515:EncycloPetey 1482: 1454: 1439: 1438: 1430: 1429: 1391:Magioladitis 1372: 1353: 1333: 1328: 1314:Magioladitis 1235:Magioladitis 1228: 1225: 1197: 1193: 1181: 1152: 1146: 1142: 1128: 1126: 1115: 1109: 1106: 1081:Shekharchndr 1075:— Preceding 1071: 1034: 998: 963: 942: 919: 868: 848: 831: 826: 819: 815: 792: 757: 751: 727: 696: 674: 673: 651: 618:McLerristarr 615: 574: 549: 505:(moved from 497:WhatamIdoing 465:WhatamIdoing 427: 345:McLerristarr 342: 272: 250: 188: 167: 143: 129: 104: 101: 78: 43: 37: 6076:Her Pegship 6026:WP:SMALLCAT 5973:Her Pegship 5924:Her Pegship 5878:Her Pegship 5804:WikiProject 5760:Her Pegship 5687:WP:SMALLCAT 5602:Her Pegship 5548:WP:SMALLCAT 5411:Burt Harris 5352:Very good, 5099:John Hoskin 4771:Finnusertop 4750:Finnusertop 4585:SMcCandlish 4086:Finnusertop 3917:Finnusertop 3475:DoctorKubla 3248:BLP sources 3211:BLP sources 2877:DoctorKubla 2587:Please see 2481:DoctorKubla 2430:latest edit 2172:DoctorKubla 1940:Basically, 1697:Jason Quinn 1198:HJ Mitchell 1175:HJ Mitchell 1002:Dr. Blofeld 857:Dr. Blofeld 750:This is an 557:problem. -- 36:This is an 5432:Fourthords 5140:|answered= 5101:yourself. 5059:There are 5038:|answered= 4923:KuyaBriBri 4869:|answered= 4816:Zulfadli51 4256:MOS:ACCESS 4206:Rathfelder 4163:Rathfelder 4148:Rathfelder 4112:Rathfelder 3981:plant stub 3611:reply here 3574:reply here 3548:Rathfelder 3518:Rathfelder 3459:Rathfelder 3386:|answered= 3297:WP:BLPPROD 3256:refimprove 3041:BradMajors 3006:. Cheers, 2791:73.49.1.29 2773:|answered= 2710:RadioKAOS 2561:Physics114 2547:Physics114 2502:Physics114 2337:WP:FOOTERS 2256:reply here 2157:·Add§hore· 2020:Kasper2006 1611:characters 1459:Farmbrough 1229:An editor 1147:status quo 1129:status quo 1031:Suggestion 804:Archive 16 799:Archive 15 793:Archive 14 787:Archive 13 782:Archive 12 774:Archive 10 679:Farmbrough 656:Farmbrough 612:two spaces 554:inapposite 414:WP:FOOTERS 376:just one; 277:Farmbrough 255:Farmbrough 148:Farmbrough 109:Farmbrough 90:Archive 16 85:Archive 15 79:Archive 14 73:Archive 13 68:Archive 12 60:Archive 10 6132:measure. 6031:Debresser 5706:North8000 5691:Debresser 5670:North8000 5486:Debresser 5449:Debresser 5269:Debresser 5201:Not done: 5091:Not done: 5065:help page 5000:Debresser 4989:one line 4913:talk page 4909:Not done: 4692:Example: 4639:This edit 4224:Indenting 3884:It's not 3626:Cas Liber 3218:Redrose64 3008:Cas Liber 2853:Cas Liber 2814:talk page 2810:Not done: 2666:Cas Liber 2622:Cas Liber 2470:WP:SUBCAT 1907:WP:ASSESS 1872:WP:ASSESS 1735:screenful 1527:Addendum: 1271:Debresser 1143:clarified 877:bobrayner 635:Debresser 530:Debresser 423:Laja Lake 399:Debresser 378:Laja Lake 306:Debresser 292:Debresser 237:Debresser 207:Debresser 6106:workable 6098:Question 5301:However 5259:My edit 5210:aboideau 5104:aboideau 4759:contribs 4617:examples 3926:contribs 3754:unsigned 3725:unsigned 3636:contribs 3455:Arthonia 3285:and also 3260:than to 3133:link rot 3123:Dead end 3083:sections 3035:between 3018:contribs 2987:xaosflux 2863:contribs 2676:contribs 2632:contribs 2559:Thanks, 2364:this one 2342:fixed it 2140:contribs 2128:unsigned 2010:I read: 1532:complete 1483:and Stub 1420:Complete 1289:WP:MULTI 1185:contribs 1089:contribs 1077:unsigned 1017:Aymatth2 970:Aymatth2 724:Grutness 697:Over at 594:Compare 428:anywhere 195:reverted 164:Grutness 126:Grutness 6161:Laundry 6156:Comment 5896:Pegship 5848:Laundry 5825:Laundry 5796:minimum 5632:Laundry 5627:Comment 5553:Laundry 5354:Niccast 5336:Niccast 5246:Nizolan 4991:at most 4422:cooking 4357:cooking 4296:cooking 4230:GoodDay 4176:or the 4058:length, 3945:Agelena 3892:Agelena 3863:WP:SIZE 3590:Piotrus 3425:--I am 2935:minimum 2517:Be bold 2339:. I've 2241:6 April 2073:WP:LAME 1975:WP:PLOT 1810:WP:STUB 1743:Visviva 1558:Kumioko 1536:lengthy 1354:Against 1013:Jessemv 1011:I like 986:Jessemv 966:Xtrynyr 954:Xtrynyr 753:archive 575:because 489:{{Foo}} 39:archive 5968:per se 5366:ended. 5244:Why? — 4831:Goszei 4697:(film) 4599:ⱷ< 4536:health 4252:WP:MOS 3692:1Wiki8 3500:rose64 3304:rose64 3295:. See 3187:rose64 3113:orphan 3093:expand 2962:rose64 2951:albums 2921:Erpert 2896:Rhadow 2833:rose64 2647:.csnet 2524:rose64 2423:France 2395:rose64 2350:rose64 2211:WP:DYK 2098:Qetuth 2039:rose64 1954:should 1950:should 1942:should 1892:Qetuth 1820:rose64 1804:(e.g. 1779:Qetuth 1768:added. 1757:class. 1613:)? -- 1496:rose64 1376:Qetuth 1300:rose64 1255:Qetuth 1212:Cunard 892:Edison 827:Best, 624:Mclay1 582:rose64 559:Bejnar 514:rose64 439:rose64 385:rose64 351:Mclay1 191:change 6164:Pizza 5941:Were 5851:Pizza 5828:Pizza 5635:Pizza 5556:Pizza 5522:Alsee 5464:never 5378:Steue 5320:Steue 5144:|ans= 5130:This 5042:|ans= 5028:This 4966:Ss112 4873:|ans= 4859:This 4781:qwark 4778:Inter 4736:qwark 4733:Inter 4704:qwark 4701:Inter 4670:Asbox 4594:: --> 4534:This 4479:Egypt 4477:This 4420:This 4355:This 4294:This 3976:prose 3624:..... 3390:|ans= 3376:This 3103:unref 2955:films 2777:|ans= 2763:This 2120:usual 1189:wrote 1160:Hobit 921:Chzz 833:Chzz 598:with 16:< 6141:Sdkb 6135:{{u| 6122:. — 6057:talk 6035:talk 6006:talk 5955:talk 5904:talk 5800:main 5711:talk 5695:talk 5675:talk 5526:talk 5490:talk 5471:asem 5453:talk 5415:talk 5382:talk 5340:talk 5324:talk 5311:this 5286:In: 5273:talk 5235:talk 5225:Meme 5186:talk 5076:talk 5004:talk 4977:talk 4894:talk 4835:talk 4820:talk 4755:talk 4695:Rape 4657:talk 4614:some 4608:Here 4540:stub 4483:stub 4426:stub 4361:stub 4300:stub 4254:and 4234:talk 4210:talk 4186:talk 4152:talk 4131:talk 4116:talk 4097:talk 4067:talk 4040:talk 4019:talk 3993:talk 3959:talk 3922:talk 3901:talk 3875:talk 3837:talk 3816:talk 3802:talk 3786:talk 3762:talk 3733:talk 3699:talk 3664:talk 3630:talk 3552:talk 3536:talk 3532:Kvng 3522:talk 3504:talk 3487:See 3479:talk 3463:talk 3429:k6ka 3423:Done 3408:talk 3319:Kvng 3308:talk 3299:. -- 3244:The 3236:talk 3232:Kvng 3202:PamD 3191:talk 3182:. -- 3049:talk 3045:Kvng 3039:and 3012:talk 2966:talk 2945:has 2900:talk 2881:talk 2857:talk 2837:talk 2795:talk 2737:talk 2670:talk 2655:talk 2626:talk 2597:talk 2569:talk 2551:talk 2528:talk 2506:talk 2485:talk 2468:See 2459:talk 2440:and 2399:talk 2372:talk 2354:talk 2326:talk 2302:talk 2243:2013 2231:ISBN 2195:talk 2176:talk 2136:talk 2102:talk 2081:talk 2057:talk 2043:talk 2024:talk 2018:. -- 1986:talk 1965:talk 1946:must 1916:talk 1896:talk 1881:talk 1862:talk 1847:talk 1824:talk 1783:talk 1747:talk 1716:talk 1701:talk 1634:talk 1619:talk 1594:talk 1578:jc37 1572:list 1562:talk 1544:talk 1519:talk 1500:talk 1456:Rich 1395:talk 1380:talk 1343:WP:L 1318:talk 1304:talk 1295:. -- 1275:talk 1259:talk 1239:talk 1216:talk 1179:talk 1164:talk 1085:talk 1058:talk 1054:Gigs 1042:talk 1021:talk 990:talk 974:talk 913:WT:N 896:talk 881:talk 730:wha? 708:talk 676:Rich 653:Rich 639:talk 610:but 586:talk 563:talk 534:talk 518:talk 501:talk 491:and 469:talk 443:talk 403:talk 389:talk 310:talk 296:talk 274:Rich 252:Rich 241:talk 211:talk 170:wha? 145:Rich 132:wha? 106:Rich 5992::-) 5943:you 5737:Pam 5592:\\ 5550:? – 5437:=Λ= 5315:all 5159:). 5142:or 5134:to 5040:or 5032:to 4996:two 4952:112 4935:Why 4871:or 4863:to 4837:) 4611:are 4093:Hzh 4063:Hzh 4030:Hzh 4015:Hzh 3970:Hzh 3955:Hzh 3871:Hzh 3498:Red 3388:or 3380:to 3333:Pam 3302:Red 3185:Red 3143:Pam 3068:or 2960:Red 2953:or 2831:Red 2775:or 2767:to 2733:P64 2686:DES 2522:Red 2455:P64 2393:Red 2348:Red 2274:Pam 2075:. 2037:Red 1818:Red 1671:Pam 1661:At 1554:not 1494:Red 1431:Pam 1334:For 1298:Red 1156:NAC 873:GNG 869:try 726:... 722:). 580:Red 550:not 512:Red 509:by 437:Red 383:Red 330:msg 166:... 128:... 6181:) 6178:c̄ 6167:03 6147:}} 6120:}} 6114:{{ 6059:) 6048:No 6044:No 6037:) 6008:) 5957:) 5906:) 5868:) 5865:c̄ 5854:03 5842:c̄ 5831:03 5806:.) 5713:) 5697:) 5677:) 5652:) 5649:c̄ 5638:03 5573:) 5570:c̄ 5559:03 5528:) 5492:) 5478:) 5467:-- 5455:) 5435:| 5417:) 5384:) 5342:) 5326:) 5275:) 5237:) 5207:. 5188:) 5148:no 5078:) 5067:). 5046:no 5006:) 4979:) 4946:Ss 4896:) 4877:no 4822:) 4761:) 4757:⋅ 4748:– 4673:}} 4667:{{ 4659:) 4595:ⱷ҅ 4582:— 4274:}} 4272:}} 4266:{{ 4264:| 4260:{{ 4236:) 4212:) 4188:) 4172:, 4154:) 4133:) 4118:) 4099:) 4069:) 4042:) 4021:) 3995:) 3961:) 3928:) 3924:⋅ 3915:– 3903:) 3877:) 3839:) 3818:) 3804:) 3788:) 3764:) 3735:) 3701:) 3666:) 3638:) 3592:? 3588:, 3554:) 3538:) 3524:) 3506:) 3481:) 3465:) 3410:) 3394:no 3310:) 3293:}} 3289:{{ 3287:a 3282:}} 3278:{{ 3274:}} 3270:{{ 3266:}} 3262:{{ 3258:}} 3254:{{ 3250:}} 3246:{{ 3238:) 3228:}} 3222:{{ 3214:}} 3208:{{ 3193:) 3176:}} 3172:{{ 3168:}} 3164:{{ 3136:}} 3130:{{ 3126:}} 3120:{{ 3116:}} 3110:{{ 3106:}} 3100:{{ 3096:}} 3090:{{ 3088:, 3086:}} 3080:{{ 3078:, 3076:}} 3070:{{ 3066:}} 3060:{{ 3051:) 3020:) 2968:) 2943:}} 2939:{{ 2902:) 2883:) 2865:) 2839:) 2797:) 2781:no 2739:) 2713:– 2705:}} 2699:{{ 2678:) 2657:) 2634:) 2599:) 2571:) 2553:) 2543:}} 2539:{{ 2530:) 2508:) 2487:) 2472:: 2461:) 2453:-- 2401:) 2374:) 2356:) 2328:) 2304:) 2197:) 2178:) 2142:) 2138:• 2104:) 2096:-- 2083:) 2059:) 2045:) 2034:-- 2026:) 1988:) 1967:) 1918:) 1898:) 1883:) 1864:) 1849:) 1826:) 1798:}} 1794:{{ 1785:) 1749:) 1718:) 1703:) 1695:. 1636:) 1621:) 1596:) 1570:A 1564:) 1546:) 1521:) 1502:) 1491:-- 1462:, 1423:}} 1417:{{ 1413:}} 1407:{{ 1397:) 1382:) 1320:) 1306:) 1277:) 1261:) 1241:) 1218:) 1202:| 1191:: 1187:) 1166:) 1158:. 1091:) 1087:• 1060:) 1044:) 1023:) 992:) 976:) 927:► 898:) 883:) 875:. 839:► 824:. 778:← 710:) 682:, 659:, 641:) 621:| 588:) 565:) 536:) 520:) 471:) 445:) 405:) 391:) 366:}} 362:{{ 348:| 332:) 312:) 298:) 280:, 258:, 243:) 213:) 151:, 112:, 64:← 6173:d 6170:( 6086:) 6083:? 6080:( 6055:( 6033:( 6004:( 5983:) 5980:? 5977:( 5953:( 5934:) 5931:? 5928:( 5902:( 5888:) 5885:? 5882:( 5860:d 5857:( 5837:d 5834:( 5770:) 5767:? 5764:( 5746:D 5717:. 5709:( 5693:( 5673:( 5644:d 5641:( 5610:) 5606:( 5565:d 5562:( 5524:( 5488:( 5476:t 5474:( 5469:M 5451:( 5439:| 5413:( 5380:( 5338:( 5322:( 5271:( 5233:( 5184:( 5074:( 5002:( 4975:( 4968:: 4964:@ 4892:( 4833:( 4818:( 4774:: 4768:@ 4753:( 4729:: 4725:@ 4655:( 4621:: 4597:ᴥ 4592:¢ 4589:☏ 4571:e 4564:t 4557:v 4546:. 4514:e 4507:t 4500:v 4489:. 4457:e 4450:t 4443:v 4432:. 4392:e 4385:t 4378:v 4367:. 4331:e 4324:t 4317:v 4306:. 4244:: 4232:( 4208:( 4184:( 4165:: 4161:@ 4150:( 4129:( 4114:( 4095:( 4088:: 4084:@ 4065:( 4053:: 4049:@ 4038:( 4032:: 4028:@ 4017:( 4006:: 4002:@ 3991:( 3972:: 3968:@ 3957:( 3939:: 3935:@ 3920:( 3899:( 3873:( 3835:( 3829:: 3825:@ 3814:( 3800:( 3784:( 3760:( 3731:( 3697:( 3662:( 3633:· 3628:( 3608:| 3571:| 3550:( 3534:( 3520:( 3502:( 3477:( 3461:( 3406:( 3342:D 3321:: 3317:@ 3306:( 3234:( 3204:: 3200:@ 3189:( 3152:D 3047:( 3015:· 3010:( 2964:( 2898:( 2879:( 2860:· 2855:( 2835:( 2793:( 2735:( 2673:· 2668:( 2653:( 2629:· 2624:( 2595:( 2567:( 2549:( 2537:( 2526:( 2504:( 2483:( 2457:( 2397:( 2370:( 2352:( 2324:( 2300:( 2283:D 2253:| 2245:. 2193:( 2174:( 2134:( 2100:( 2079:( 2055:( 2041:( 2022:( 1984:( 1963:( 1914:( 1894:( 1879:( 1860:( 1845:( 1822:( 1781:( 1745:( 1714:( 1699:( 1680:D 1632:( 1617:( 1592:( 1560:( 1542:( 1517:( 1498:( 1476:( 1467:. 1440:D 1393:( 1378:( 1316:( 1302:( 1273:( 1257:( 1237:( 1214:( 1182:· 1177:( 1162:( 1083:( 1056:( 1040:( 1019:( 988:( 972:( 894:( 879:( 764:. 706:( 687:. 664:. 637:( 584:( 561:( 532:( 524:) 516:( 499:( 493:] 467:( 441:( 401:( 387:( 328:( 308:( 294:( 285:. 263:. 239:( 224:œ 209:( 156:. 117:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Stub/Archive 14 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index