Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stub/Archive 15

1455:; the English language Knowledge (XXG) has contained at various times hoax articles describing military heroes, persons of nobility, towns, and even wars. I suspect that some other language Wikipedias, with fewer administrators, likely have a number of hoax, mistake, or simply incorrect entries as well. A seasoned editor creating hundreds or thousands of stubs, such as Dr. Blofeld has frequently done, should cite a reliable source to verify each one. This is different from a naive editor creating a stub about his hometown, as his first edit. Many times I have spent hours referencing such an article when I am on "new article patrol," rather than just tagging it as unreferenced. The quality and reputation of Knowledge (XXG) diminish when it gains thousands of unreferenced stubs, some of which may be mistakes or hoaxes. The time of wikignomes is better spent helping new editors get their articles referenced, than following a seasoned editor around and trying to determine where he got his information for a stub. Is a "ricochet reference" acceptable? If the Spanish Knowledge (XXG) cites a reliable sounding source for a fact, is it acceptable to just copy that ref and insert in the article in this Knowledge (XXG), or is the editor expected to actually have checked and verified the reference? Is there a way of copying the reference (could also be from a different article in the English Knowledge (XXG)) and noting that the reference cited has not actually been viewed? When a non-English article is translated, that is likely to happen, since the foreign editor may have had access to paper references not available in the English speaking editor's country. 1803:? On random article patrol, I often find things like"Xarfax is an island in the Adriatic Sea," "Flamflim is Iceland's leading hiphop band" or "The Upchuck is a species of butterfly, Nymphalidae Danaini Vomitus." I spend countless hours which could be better spent in other ways improving the encyclopedia, searching fruitlessly for references to confirm the dubious claim. I cannot prove the negative: that no reliable sources exist. An experienced editor should cite the reliable source he used in creating the article. Dr. Blofeld proposes transwiki-ing articles, which is not unreasonable, but I have concerns of verifiability and reliable sourcing, since this Knowledge (XXG) has definitely had bogus references in many articles. If a German Wikipedian cited a book which may or may not exist, is it acceptable to duplicate that ref in the English Knowledge (XXG) without any editor of this Knowledge (XXG) having retrieved it from an online source, or eyeballed a paper copy of it? Would a 'pedia editor lie? YES! Editors have claimed that refs stated things they do not say. and some hoaxers have even cited false paper references. We lose credibility when we allow hoaxers or spin doctors to manipulate us into having articles lacking reliable and verifiable sourcing. 1049:

thorugh from a category from another wikipedia. A big project of mine at the moment is Turkish villages of which 26,000 are missing all of which have content in the articles on Turkish wikipedia and all of which have population data available. I believe they are worth starting as xxx is a village in xxx province, Turkey because at some point I know they can easily be expanded and if I was to take it in a one by one approach I would never even ttempt to try to dtart 200 let alone 26,000. In the long term I believe we are better off having even one liners on villages in Turkey as I know they can be expanded. I think there is a difference though between an article which is intended to be transwikied with content which already exists in another language and those which are unverifiable. I would rarely create an unsourced "sub stub" if it wasn't a transwiki thing. Most of my articles are sourced and contain a fact or two, especially if created in their own right not as part of the INterntranswiki project. Personally I would allow leeway in regards to short articles which exist in detail on another wikipedia and are intended to be transferred. I believe we should not think of the other wikipedias as a separate sites but as part of the same project.♦

1615:

contributions. Tiny stubs are also often created by users like Dr. Blofeld, who provide the correct formatting for future contributions. That way, instead of some totally unformatted, uncategorized article created by a Ruritanian trying to write an article on their town, we'll get something that at least in some category framework and properly formatted. The perennial debate about whether red links or poor-quality blue links do the best at motivating content creation is the only possible reason I could see to impose a minimum stub size, but until some sort of data on this topic is obtained, it would make no sense to remove useful (marginally useful, but still useful) content from the encyclopedia based on unfounded speculation. Minimum stub sizes and referencing requirements are also barriers to entry to new users, and could be demoralizing if works in progress were to be deleted.

3200:

wishy-washy, confusing, pseudo-advice that just begs the question. "It is usually desirable" indicates that there is some criterion for deciding whether or not the standard result is desirable or, for some reason, not desirable in a specific circumstance. But this is simply not true. There are no special circumstances outline by anyone in which we would want an inconsistent layout to be used in one particular article. I'm restoring the edit, considering BRD to have already been satisfied quite some time ago. If anyone had a real reason for this pointless hand-waving verbiage, they would have provided it and backed it up long before this. Either we should say to use two lines, or not; there is no case for saying "maybe" do it, without providing any guidance on when and when not to do it and for what reasons.

2471:

inclined to think that they should (or could) add more information about it. I agree that stubs should present more information than "X is a Y", but often, that information can be in an infobox, and possibly uncited. We shouldn't ban stubs because they are unsourced—we should find sources instead. I also agree that forking articles into stubs is rather silly, but I don't think we need an arbitrary time limit for redirecting stubs. If someone wants to redirect a stub, they can do so; if someone else disagrees, they can revert. Then a discussion can be held. Every stub is different, so we don't need a bureaucratic rule that adds another layer of complexity to the BRD process. If anything, it either just delays an inevitable revert and discussion, or delays an uncontested redirection.

1078:

information handy to copy and paste. In the latter category, too many National Register of Historic Places stubs come to mind. Never mind that if these places are on the NRHP, they're notable because of historically significant events or occurrences, not because of their mere placement on the NRHP. Just from reading the articles in question, however, you would think notability was due to the latter rather than the former. I would hope that if any editor is doing this with a noble cause in mind, that it would be human knowledge, not the titular subject of one article or another. Keeping that in mind, perhaps making more extensive use of article merging where necessary?

2284:

information where it is most useful for our readers? And where we should place it would depend largely on the amount of information we have. If we have little more than a directory listing, "Foo is part of Foo", then it might be more useful to have that information in context - either as part of a parent article or a list or set index article. Having the information in context tells the reader more as the reader can see the set and the relationships, and it is easier to scan and access. If the information is contained in a parent or list article, and a reader clicks on a link to be given the same information in a stub, then that stub has simply created frustration.

2869: 170: 743: 1985:"content creation". It's a notch above spamming. Now, because it is a "notch above" it may very well be within Knowledge (XXG) policy. But if you're looking to really improve the encyclopedia than rather than mass creating stubs that will just sit there for the next five years, how about going to the library, getting a book or two, reading them, sitting down, writing, referencing and improving some already existing long forgotten stub. Oh yeah, that's like... real work. And your edit count doesn't go up all that much. Nevermind. 1778:(ec)If I start a stub on the number 56334956 is that notable? I can put in some "meaningful content" in there, as in "56334956 is the natural number between 56334955 and 56334957" (and that's it). I could maybe even put in some kind of Math template and an infobox (with a bit of a stretch). And hell, "sourcing" this won't be that hard either (I'm sure I can find some statistics textbook which lists it in its random numbers table ;)) On that note, it seems to me that the Category:Integers gives up too easily 2066:"And we can also wonder why identical one-line stubs (whether sourced or not) like X is a river in Y can not be more efficiently be grouped in a list (or number of lists), "list of rivers in Y", with redirects from the individual articles. " Well the answer is simple to that one, many of the river articles have full content article son the other wiki which is intended to be translated. Given that we are not paper and space it not an issue, it would be more productive to fully translate.♦ 2569:" For instance, the existence of an article about the topic in a different language Knowledge (XXG) is "one source," but not a sufficient one, since it is no more a reliable source than any other source "anyone can edit anonymously." It is unreasonable to assume that some other Knowledge (XXG) has no hoaxers or charlatans editing it, and to assume that sources referenced in the other Knowledge (XXG) can be relied on without our editor actually seeing them. 31: 1237:"Which are as they stand are useless" and "are useless" are two different things. We are a wiki and content can be added within seconds/minutes if anybody wants to add it. I only start articles which I believe are notable topics and can be expanded. The idea Karanacs is that in a few years time we end up with hundreds of thousands of full length sourced articles!! The ultimate goal is that by 2015 we see many articles started developed like 1446:." A similar one line minimal stub about a present or former licensed radio or TV station which produced a portion of its programming would be acceptable if referenced to the FCC (or appropriate national) database. Its frequency, power, ownership, format etc would be useful info but not essential if someone wanted to create a category of related stubs from a reliable source. The same goes for some politicians such as state legislators. " 1518:

distant geographical area is only giving lip service to the idea of countering bias. Is it better to have 1000 articles, each containing 10 words, so that we now have 10,000 words on this topic, or to have 10 articles with 1,000 words each, so that we have some depth to the topic? Is it really bias to not have articles on the English wikipedia on topics where sources cannot be found in English to do more than verify existance?

205:. He was born in Ohio, served in the Civil War, was awarded the Medal of Honor before the language included "above and beyond," was discharged, and died in 1917. Loyd gets a page because of the Medal but that's the only reason. His page will never be anything BUT a stub. Do we need a template named "permstub" (or something) that acknowledges the fact of the "stubness" but doesn't put the page on a to-be-fixed list/category?-- 3613:

there are, or whether there are any at all. It wouldn't go out of its way to make more work for itself - that would defeat any possible purpose it might have. The only reason any editors would want to expend more effort is if they see a useful purpose to that effort. Which in this case, there is. It's no "clique" - it's just editors who all see good reason for a gap to be placed between categories and stub templates.

412:" phrase gives a wordy, accurate explanation, but I think some examples of good Articles for Knowledge (XXG) vs. dictionary articles would be helpful. And the link to "use-mention distinction" is pretty arcane to be useful. I'd toss out an example "example" but it's likely to not be too good of an example. I know quite well the difference but some concrete examples should be helpful here for the average new editor. 1635:

a system in which more fuller articles could be create relatively quickly piece by piece. Of course some translations i certian languages are better than others but if we had a bot creating an english equivalent of eveyr missing article on another wikipedia in our work space we would be much more organized. I think most people here grossly underestimate the value of missing articles on other wikipedias. I want

2820: 102: 1269:

verifiability, as no editor here can be assumed to be reliable.. Nonetheless, the creation of articles even with out sources should be permitted, because someone else may wish to source them--and usually someone does do that. But someone who insists on created unsourced articles--large or small, minimal or more than minimal, is not being as constructive as they ought to be.

1102:, for example). This way the encyclopedia could still have the basic information (now we know the village exists), and an article on a particular village can be created later, when sources have been identified and someone is actually interested enough to write a real article about it. That said, the proposed text is so vague that the current stub creation would qualify. 3304:, which is just an essay and an optional process, is already satisfied. Further discussion may determine whether we want to keep advising insertion of blank lines, to advise a different number of them, or to handle this some other way, e.g. with a CSS class. Discussion is never going to arrive at a consensus to continue using meaningless, question-begging wording. 3582:"Tag-teamed"? Nice pun! Rather, though, it's that you're the one person who's decided that everyone else is out of step. So far in this argument I count five people in favour of leaving blank lines, two who made general comments which didn't indicate a preference one way or the other, and just you, Lugnuts, who sees anything wrong with there being blank lines. 1030:

can later be expanded into a fully-fleshed out article. Many of our geographic location articles started out in such a state, whether mass-created or not. Somebody lives some tiny village and finds it isn't mentioned here, so they add it. Later on someone else comes along and expands it and adds refs. That's exactly how Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to work.

1117:

lakes of Sweden. The vast majority are only interested in their part of the world and popular culture/sport. Sorry but because the average Joe doesn't want to write a full article about a legit town of a few thousand people in Benin that is not a reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia. Of course we need some interest from one or two to expand it. Take

2052:(whether sourced or not) like X is a river in Y can not be more efficiently be grouped in a list (or number of lists), "list of rivers in Y", with redirects from the individual articles. It seems to me to be a lot more reader-friendly to group such clearly related info, instead of having so many articles almost entirely void of meaningful info. 3510:

fails to produce a useful outcome, it is time again for bold action. It has been taken, other editors support it, zero editors have defended Lugnuts's insistence on including language that makes no sense, so I cannot see how this matter is anything but closed. I strongly suggest we return to discussion of what the actual optimal

2752:

which cited Google Maps, of all things, as a sole source . And when I checked, I found that not all of the place names actually appear on Google Maps, at any zoom level.) It's about time that this stopped. If someone wants to write an article about a place, let him or her do enough research to at least sustain a reasonable stub.

2203:

does deprecate mean in this instance?" (2) Your proposal doesn't really resolve this disagreement, beyond encouraging the use of sources. What I see in this discussion is that all concerned parties disagree on exactly how much information "will be useful to readers": we have people above arguing that "X is a river in Y"

2243:

editors do this by default all the time - whenever someone copyedits an article with offline sources they haven't read, or an article translated from another Wiki, or supports an FA, GA, or DYK without having read and understood every single word in the sources, they are in effect affirming their trust in the info.

2283:

I think the question here is not should we have information on all the rivers in Vlasticnovia, or all the episodes of Porky and Butbum, or all the beers made by Pisshead Brewery, or all the stations on the Random Valley Line, or all the players in Awesome Football Team, but where should we place that

1979:

As I already said numerous times, there's nothing "wrong" per se with mass creating stubs or "red link destroying" (I can actually can think of somethings - like the fact that a red link exists for a good reason and you're taking away a signal to others who might create a REAL article). And of course

1597:

The way I see it is that we are here to provide the most comprehensive encyclopedia we can possibly create and that ignoring 700 rivers of some province of a country is a wiki sin! Especially if the article equivalent on another wikipedia is very developed and sourced. In my view the article existing

1400:

have automatic notability. Yes, at some point, the Foundation should have pages dedicated to being a gazetteer to list out all these features, but this screams to either break out a WikiAtlas project, or to use reason seasons to group common features into list/tables within the encyclopedic side. No

1326:

That would be good enough for me. A source would verify existence of the chateau, and likely leads to further information. The article has useful information about the chateau, even a picture, so would not annoy the reader who clicked on the bluelink. They might want more, but at least get something.

1029:

articles. Nor should it be. The rest of your proposal is contradictory. You say they should "provide some information about the subject that will be useful to readers, even if that information is minimal. " That's exactly what these one-liners do, provide minimal information on a notable subject that

355:

I got a question that I just recently thought of and want some input on. If an article that is deemed a Stub is not expanded upon by editors with additional information over a considerable period of time (i.e. more than four years), does it have a duration of notability on it under this circumstance,

3718:

Sorry, just read from the beginning. If the templates and CSS is now taking care of this, let's toss the two-line recommendation, I haven't seen a good argument for that and there's no other similar formatting suggestions as far as I'm aware. Let's specify one blank line between stub template(s) and

1634:

which uses google translate to auto generate articles in our wikipedia space and once checked/proof read and a source or two added they can simply be moved into the mainspace. I would strongly urge people here to support me on this as you'd no longer see the pathetic attempts to transfer content but

1450:

was a member of the Maine Legislature" would be minimally acceptable, referenced to the state legislature database. It would be desirable and helpful to the reader to note that Abbott served in one term, from January to March, 1874. Local newspapers (not indexed in Google Newspaper archive) and the

1262:

The principles are building the web, and that Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an encyclopedia --even incomplete information is useful, as long as it is verifiable. Whether we would do better making combination articles is a question of style, that basically does not greatly matter: people may do

1245:

topics which get excluded due to bias and want us to at least try to start covering the world evenly! OK maybe start the article will not change the fact that many are no interested in Swedish lakes but that doesn't make them unencyclopedic.. I could accept a rule that "if a reader visits an article

1116:

With all due respect Karanacs dictating what should be written into this encyclopedia because of "interest to actually write a real article about it" is the extreme problem we are suffering from. Systematic bias, which is why we have GAs on hundred of US TV series episodes and are missing 95% of the

967:"As a rule, a stub should provide some information about the subject that will be useful to readers, even if that information is minimal. It should also give at least one source for the information provided. Creation of stubs that provide no useful information and/or include no sources is deprecated" 3612:

Lugnuts, think logically about this for a minute. Why would some imagined "tag-team" of stub-sorters want to make themselves more work by checking articles to maintain a gap between tags and categories? Surely if there is some "clique", it would be in their best interests not to care how many lines

3227:

Two blank lines may no longer be strictly needed since there are other mechanisms to achieve the same effect. However, leaving one blank line is still necessary. Many editors simply add new categories to the end of what they perceive as being the category list without noticing whether the last item

2600:

per instruction creep. We already have a CSD for truly empty articles, anything beyond that--in my view--imparts useful information. We also have a recent, large-scale RFC rejecting a one-source requirement on new articles. Yes, longer is always better, and more sources are always better, but this

2257:

Hi. I just noticed this conversation and wanted to voice my opinion that I agree with some of the above users about that there should be a requirement about some external source. This could be at minimum a hyperlink within single brackets, and is a better solution than having "this article has less

2202:

Two thoughts, Aymatth2. (1) Regardless whether I support or oppose your propsoed guideline, I'd suggest that instead of "deprecated" you should have "discouraged" or similar language; "deprecated" would distract the reader with questions like "you mean, we could do this -- why the change?" or "what

1502:

I think very minimal stubs could be ok but they shouldn't contain mistakes or to be misleading. Also even minimal stub should have an infobox with the most important information (length, mouth, country - for rivers; population, coordinates, administration subjects - for settlements). We should keep

781:

is full of articles - many election results, histories of sports events and the like - which are very substantial, but in table form, and it has been put to me that "We don't build articles out of tables. We build them out of prose. How is an article with just two articles of prose above a stub?"

3374:

And I call bullshit on your response. From personal experience I can definitely verify that it makes manual hunting and replacing a much slower task. I repeat -I have provided a valid reason why. If you find no difficulty, then you're lucky. For the rest of us, it makes the work harder. Note that

2784:

I don't see a consensus for change emerging from this. People feel that we don't need any further guidance which might discourage the creation of stubs per se, and that existing guidelines and consensus are in place to allow the deletion or redirection of clearly inappropriate stubs. I will remove

2542:

I'd support 1, but we already have it. It's the speedy deletion criteria for lack of content or context. An article has to say what it's about. WP grows from tubs, mostly, and it is almost impossible to rule out something as non-expandable. When I see a new article submitted in full at the first

2298:

I would be hesitant to put too many limitations on creating a new article, as articles may develop from the most unpromising beginnings; however, if an article has been around for a little while (a week? a month?) and has not grown, then serious consideration should be given to merging the content

2221:

I agree with both points, llywrch. "Discouraged" is a better word. And the proposal does not fully resolve the issue. It expresses a preference for useful information backed up by sources, which should not be controversial. How much is enough to be useful? I would not attempt to define that. But a

2002:

I understand your point however I'm not interested in my edit count. I've got more important things to do such as some coursework and revising for exams than going to a library - I'm not saying that's too much effort, I'm just saying that there is little point in doing that because after all it is

1614:

any attempt whatsoever to create a minimum stub size. Assuming that a stub is not totally empty, it provides information to our users. (Reader: "Oh, Xtrynyr is located in Ruritania.") Tiny stubs are sometimes created by clueless newbies--it's no use to delete their (meager, but marginally helpful)

1589:

If you look at the new pages right you'll find worse articles than stub I created which are poorly formatted, unsourced, lacking basic wikification/categories. At least my measliest stubs have the "infrastructure" in place. Its a big problem that we don't have enough editors to sort out all of the

1517:

Dr Blofield, the examples you listed are, in my opinion, decent stubs. They contain more information than "this place exists". I don't see the point in sub-stubs that establish that something exists without telling us anything at all about them. In my opinion, having lots of one-line stubs on a

3457:

The phrase "it is usually desirable" raises the question "In what cases is it not desirable?", which is unanswered. The documentation would be improved if this vagueness was removed: just "Leave two blank lines". I have no strong views on one versus two blank lines. At present we need to campaign

3049:

Yes, we want the visual spacing; yes, CSS can handle this better today. We don't need to say "usually"; that was someones "I hate firm rules on Knowledge (XXG)" PoV pushing, and guidelines should not use wishy-washy wording like that without good reason, and provide an explanation/example of the

2751:

with Edison's addition offered above, although I'd prefer seeing something even stronger. There has apparently been a long tradition of the creation of masses of such one-sentence substubs with no sources or clearly unacceptable sources. (I've seen a bunch of geographical articles lately, each of

2643:

problem. That being said, there are no inherent problems with stubs - they represent our best opportunity to attract new editors willing to expand on a subject. A stub which can be expanded and improved is a much better starting point than asking a new editor to write an article from scratch. The

2242:

IMO the barest 'x is a y in z' is OK and provides enough context. But I'd support something here along the lines of 'a reliable source is strongly recommended.' As to whether the ref has been read. There is a Assume Good Faith issue here, when it comes to articles from other language Wikis. EN-WP

1652:

I totally agree, I got warned by a sysop to create articles with at least one reference, which I have been doing now. There shouldn't be a limit to the number of words/byes that a stub should have, a stub is ready to be expanded anytime and almost all of them are notable enough especially if they

1437:

It is acceptable to create very short stubs about types of subject generally accepted as notable, as long as they have at least one reliable source to satisfy verifiability. High schools are generally found in AFD to be notable, for instance. "Blivet High School was a high school in Tennessee,"

1268:

The relevant question can therefore only be whether we should encourage the making of stubs without sources. We should not. We should encourage all articles to be sourced. An encyclopedia without explicit or implied verifiability is close to useless, & our method of working requires explicit

495:

Unless a stub template is malformed in some way, or duplicates another stub template, I see no reason to delete it: it might be needed tomorrow. Stub templates are used temporarily: if, in an ideal world, every article in the encyclopedia was improved beyond stub status, every stub template would

4088:

I removed the following, {{clarify|Why two blank lines? It is counter-intuitive, so needs a reason/explanation.}}, from the project page, as it think it can be resolved here. The instruction to have two blank lines preceding a stub notice is for aesthetic reasons. If there is only one blank line

3509:

is not a weapon to use against other editors, it's a process which sometimes works, when everyone engages in it in good faith and reasonableness. Go actually read it, Lugnuts. It concludes with the clear observation that after discussion (and a month of it going nowhere is way more than enough)

2051:

I don't think there should be a minimum size. I do think we can make a requirement that batch creation of stubs should meet some minimal standards, like having at least one reliable source (not a foreign wikipedia version or other wikiproject). And we can also wonder why identical one-line stubs

1913:

Well, Dr., you're a strange fellow yourself. For someone who "doesn't care what I say" you sure get huffy (up to and including removing my comments from talk pages, which is a no-no). I wasn't expecting that anything but "Stubs good!" or "Stubs bad!" would be taken as "confusing" by some. And I

1556:

Agreed that actually one line stubs untouched for two three years illuminate the sytematic bias problem by exisitng and remaining untouched. But I get exasperated at times at our ignorance of real notable subjects which should have full articles by now that occasionally I resort to auto drill if

1395:

allow for any other topic unless it has been assessed via one of the sub-notability guidelines. And even then, the presumption of notability is how much the community tolerates the lack of proof. The fact that notability guidelines for geographic features have been presented and rejected by the

1060:

I am o.k. with that. Presumably a person creating a stub has access to some knowledge about the subject, maybe from another wikipedia, and can provide a bit of information with a source. Then the stub does not irritate people who follow the blue link before it gets expanded. Saying "Xtrynyr is a

3937:

I agree - leaving a gap for readers is important, and is best served in CSS; leaving a gap for editors is also important, and can be served by one or more blank lines. Redrose's ancient talk post seems much more sensible than the hard-and-fast "must be two" or the frankly pointless "two in most

3803:

You're not wrong. I will add that I don't think anyone is up for editing all stubs to remove extra blank lines. We either need to get a bot to do this or we need to implement the template/CSS so that the page layout produced is the same whether there are 0, 1 or 2 blank lines preceding the stub

3008:

are setup to automatically add that extra newline, removing it is largely useless, but most editors do not know about this guideline and instinctively remove one of them whenever they see two. Using two blank lines (ie three newlines) is generally frowned upon, not just on WP, and that for good

2694:. Stubs are a useful stage in building an article, and as has been explained above, they do contain some useful information. Adding rules which try to get rid of stubs is both instruction creep and likely to discourage long-term expansion of topics which don't already have substantial articles. 2470:

I think stubs are the core of Knowledge (XXG). Much of our content is composed of stubs. Stubs can be very useful, too. It makes information easier to find, for one. It also makes someone think, "Hey, I can add information to this article". If a topic is covered in a list, most readers won't be

2433:

When adding new material to Knowledge (XXG), consideration should be given as to where to place the material - sometimes it is better to add small amounts of material to existing articles than to create a stub. If the material is part of a set, such as a group of rivers in a region, think about

2128:

Not exactly. This is a proposal to expand the guideline so it "deprecates" creation of stubs that provide no useful information and/or include no sources. Basically: "we much prefer that stubs have at least some information and quote at least one source". This is not change in policy but in the

1984:

winds up being vastly improved. But for every stub that became an FA or GA I can show you a few dozen that have languished as stubs since their creation three or four years ago, with not a single(ok maybe one) meaningful edit to them. Ergo, "red link destroying" and "mass creating stubs" is NOT

1727:

The purpose of Knowledge (XXG) is to provide useful and verifiable information to readers in an accessible form. The question is whether the WP:Stub guideline should explicitly say that stubs should give some useful information and provide at least one source, and that stubs that have no useful

1346:

Coming from the discussion at ANI, my issue with auto creation of very short stubs that are obviously verifiable is that they lack notability. Notability's only a guideline, and of course there are some classes of articles like geographical features that are generally accepted on the long-term

1077:

Most of the useless stubs I come across appear to be created in the hopes that someone else will come along and provide extensive information about a very narrow subject, which is only likely to happen if a) you have an editor who is that obsessed with the subject, or b) there is a PD source of

3034:

If this is not possible for some reason, I think we need to pick one of the two styles and stick with it. It makes little sense to allow bots/AWB to make this change en masse (that is there's consensus for two blank lines) while at the same time calling it "usually desirable" (consensus to use

2677:, just in case my !vote wasn't clear from my comment above. No coherent explanation has been given of why our current guidelines fail to support our mission of building an encyclopedia. These proposals would hinder that process by making the first step in creating articles much more difficult. 1048:

In principal I would agree with Aymatth2 that all new created articles really should have bare minimum one fact, preferably referenced. However, I as was recently discussed am prone to getting carried away with some batches of contentless articles if there is a large number of articles to work

2319:

I generally agree with the above. The irritation factor is what mostly concerns me - readers getting to a stub that tells them nothing new. But before putting this on CENT, it is worth planning how to avoid a confused and inconclusive rehash of fixed and incompatible positions. How should the

663:

I cannot find any information on Knowledge (XXG) that references stub deletion, which is probably the answer to my question. I would like to know if there is a policy or guideline about deleting stubs. I am not the author of the stub. Thank you for any assistance. God bless and happy editing!

3529:

Maybe there are different practices in different areas, but in my experience of editing, the standard practice is to leave two blank lines. The advantage is that it clearly picks out the stub template from the normal categories when editing, and in the viewed article differentiates real from

3199:

I changed "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines" to "Leave two blank lines" some time ago, since regardless of the eventual outcome of the above discussion about whether we want two blank lines or not, there is no rationale provided, no logical reason, and no excuse for providing

1355:

by the newer users that see these articles get deleted while we have stubby articles on a river that only 100 people in the world may even know about. Personally, articles that are likely going to be stubs for a long long time should instead be created as redirects to a list of such notable

2418:

As a rule, a stub should provide some information about the subject that will be useful to readers, even if that information is minimal. It should also give at least one source for the information provided. Creation of stubs that provide no useful information and/or include no sources is

2003:

going to be hard trying to find material for a Chinese village in the middle of nowhere. I do see your point, and I am a good copy editor and I am interested in content, but I am also interested in getting rid of all these masses of red links even if they all have a reference for each.

1639:

to be much more organized and constructive and to have the ability to generate articles more fully first time with minimum effort. That's one of the key problems in this, is sheer mass of missing content and amount of time. We desperately need something powerful to get us organized.♦

2851:

The information is not correct. The cricket Association of Cambodia is not legitimate body of cricket in Cambodia. There is no national team in Cambodia. As per law of association in Cambodia the Association must be registered with Ministry of Interior Royal government of Cambodia.

2187:

Note the terms "As a rule" and "is deprecated". The proposed guideline change does not require that all stubs have useful information and cite a source. It recognizes that there will be exceptions, but recommends that in most cases some useful information be included with a source.

435:

to create a task force monitoring the unused templates on Knowledge (XXG). According to one of the users, there are about 1,000 unused stub templates. Are any members of this project going to nominate them for a Tfd? It would help minimize the workload for the proposed task force.

3299:

it should say something so pointless and editor-confusing, multiple editors object to it (see below as well, plus recent page history), zero editors have provided a rationale for that wording, this discussion has turned circular, it has been running just short of a month, ergo

1373:

I disagree. A notable topic will always be notable however short. The problem as you say is that some of them may take an awful amount of time to be developed. IN regards to settlements time and time again I've requested a bot creates lists of settlements in a table like

3392:"I can definitely verify that it makes manual hunting and replacing a much slower task" - well blaming that for your lack of skills in editing is certainly an interesting rationale for keeping it. Not my fault you're not really up to doing a very straight forward task. 2258:

than X words, it must be deleted" mentality. If the article is really short (as in less than a paragraph or so) and lacks any citations of any kind, then it should be deleted. This should serve as a springboard for anyone who wants to further expand the article. Best,

2287:

If the information is already in Knowledge (XXG), then it should not be split out into a standalone article until it either provides more information than is in the parent article, or the amount of information in the parent article is so large it can be reduced per

2182:"As a rule, a stub should provide some information about the subject that will be useful to readers. It should also give at least one source for the information provided. Creation of stubs that provide no useful information and/or include no sources is deprecated" 3228:

on the list is actually a stub template. This makes manual hunting for stubs (in order to remove or sort them) and repositioning of them at the end of the category list a much slower task. For that reason, "Leave a blank line" seems like the optimal instruction.

3785:. A double space in the wikitext does this, but the same effect could be achieved by CSS. I think there's a consensus that CSS is the way to go, after which the double blank line can be replaced by a single blank line. Or am I wrong about this second issue? 3642:

thought there was a stub-sorting cabal, and got mad, then realized it was mostly poor documentation confusing people, so I rewrote it without changing anything substantive, everyone seemed to like it, and I moved on. Heh. I think that was in 2006 or so.

797:"Ignored" is probably a strong word, but tabular data probably doesn't count for a lot. What may happen, though, is that an article that consists and probably always will consist of such data is often really a list that needs to be renamed to "List of 138:

2.I do not think the figures, front-right, in the Caillebotte, could be described so either, as they tend to draw the eye out of the scene (of course in doing that, they DO emphasise the depth of the scene); but still, I would suggest, NOT 'repoussoir.

3504:

I also find it interesting that Lugnuts throws around accusations of editwarring immediately after reverting, with no actual rationale, an edit made with a very, very clear rationale that no one can refute. And someone else restored that edit of mine.

1246:

he MUST be able to learn one fact at bare minimum about that subject". So for a town a population figure or location information in relation to other settlements, with rivers or lakes an area/length figure, with mountains an altitude figure etc. ♦

1203:

too, for the same reason, but would have no problem if one of the sources on the :fr wikipedia were brought across. With trans-wiki articles, we still need some basic proof of existence from external sources. Other wikis have quality problems too.

149:

1. The 'Nativity scene', where the two angels on the far right direct our gaze inward towards the angels who are celebrating the birth over the roof of the stable and the sheep in the near right, several of which direct our view to Mary And Jesus.

4111:

I didn't see this discussion when I posted. I will note that it remains the case that the first blank line does not show in the rendered text after a nav template, but does show if there is no nav template. A lot of stubs do have nav templates. -

542:

Thanks. The majority of those look perfectly fine; on a quick skim through I've nominated 4 for deletion as malformed duplicates, or in one case a malformed, unused, stub not part of an existing hierarchy. Other stub geeks might spot a few more.

1901:

Marek, you are one strange fellow. You talk in riddles and seem to like confusing things and getting your tongue in a twist. Nobody cares what you say, and that goes for Jimbo who likely scans over your ramblings to read constructive comments!.♦

1668:

I think the point of the discussions that took place elsewhere, which is being entirely missed here is not that what you guys are doing/want to do is "wrong", just that your priorities are deeply misplaced. Also see my comments at Jimbo's page

200:

I realize I may be in the wrong place but here goes. Stubs are bad. We know that because we have a template that asks people to help improve each stub page and adds the page to a category. But some stubs, I submit, are permanent. An example is

1694:

It happens that I wouldn't mass-create such stubs; being a mergeist, I'd create a list or sections in an article instead. But eventually both need to exist, so you won't find me complaining about the person who's doing the other half of the

134:

defines 'repoussoir' as "a strongly defined figure in the FOREGROUND of a picture to 'push back' or give depth to, and enhance the principal scene or episode'. On that basis, the figure on the right in the Rubens picture is the 'repoussoir'.

1378:

by country using coordinates from geonames and we redirect until enough info can be found to create half decent articles. Given that there appears to be support for this why didn't any of you lot support me for I proposed this huh? ♦

2948:

That still doesn't change the fact that I'm finding "stubs" that are several pages long because no one ever bothers to remove the tag, or because they think "article isn't featured, therefore it's a stub by default". I've seen people

4089:

before the stub notice ln the wiki text, the stub notice is displayed immediately under any preceding nav template. It takes two blank lines in the wiki text to produce one blank line in the displayed page. See also the comment in

2543:

edit, I start suspecting either copyvio or commercial Press release. I see nothing wrong with a series of stubs: checking Diderot's encylopédie, he has thousands of one-line articles, as do almost all traditional .encyclopedias.

261:

I should have gotten back to you sooner. "Bad" should have been in quotes from the start; I occasionally forget that voice inflection doesn't carry well to the printed page. I'd like to see additional editor weight in on

2078:

And nothing stops you or anyone to change the redirect into an article at the moment that this translation is done. Your reply does not provide a reason against the preference for a list instead of identical microstubs.

3336:. And to add to this user's hypocrisy, he's shooting down WP:BRD as an essay, but using WP:CONTENTAGE for his lame argurement for edit-warring. Yes, you've guessed it, CONTENTAGE is an essay. Where's my pot and kettle? 2734:, then the chances are that a tiny village in Moldova would not have any information. If a Moldavian reader who knows English could update that article, that would be fair. However these new proposals aren't that fair. 2113:, a proposal from July 2011 that failed after a good deal of community discussion. No use beating a dead horse here on a relatively obscure talk page, where this proposal has already failed after a broader discussion. 2660:. Useless instruction creep that will mainly serve to male discussion more contentious. Knowledge (XXG) and its users are often well served by short, unvarnished articles conveying essential, unvarnished information. 1914:

didn't know you had a psychic link with Jimbo which lets you know how he reads the comments on his page. Are you sure you're not over-reaching there and projecting your innermost hopes on the innocent man? Take care.

1690:

I think that the minimum size for a stub is one sentence. Even if that one sentence is "next to nothing, e.g. 'Xtrynyr is a community in Ruritania'," that first sentence is what many of our editors actually want to

2031:

Minimum stub-size is a non-arguement. It either meets the GNG or it doesn't. Is a stub with 20 words OK? What if it was only 19 long, for example? If it has no context, then the speedy deletion becomes applicable.

866:. This is helpful for one of my scripts, which relies on the taxonomic name when figuring out what stub to use. I realized I'm starting to make a bunch of these so I figured I'd better double check here. Thanks. – 631:, if you're interested in my task force proposal or anyone else for that matter feel free to join on the Template project talk page as this question about the Stub templates is a part of the main discussion. -- 3964:

tag. It would be nice to semantically separate the housekeeping material at the code level. Marked up this way, one blank line might be enough for editors, and spacing at the reader level adjusted with CSS.

1098:(ex x2)I find the one-line mass-created stubs absolutely useless and think it's even worse to see one of these without any reference at all. The information would be much better presented as part of a list ( 3370:

Your rationale is invalid. "This makes manual hunting for stubs ... ...a much slower task". I call bullshit on that. I've never had a problem finding the stub tag on an article. 06:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

1883:

does not even make grammatical sense. Let me rephrase. Unclear statements though yours are maybe are somehow. I don't think it's my presentation that is unclear here. Sure, go out there and create some

2447:

If a stub is created that might be a candidate for redirecting to a list or parent article, it should be given at least seven days before redirecting to allow contributors time to develop the article

2207:

sufficiently enough information to be useful to our readers. (And responding to their assertions with language along the lines of "That's not right" won't get us to a concensus on the matter. ;) --

3514:

is: What do we want this segments of self-referential content to do, under what circumstances, and what is the best way to get that result? I.e., what will produce the lowest error/confusion rate?

1799:

Are we agreed that "X is a species of Y" or "X is a comet" or "X is a Y in Z" articles are minimally acceptable, (if not admirable,) so long as they have at least one reliable source, to satisfy

285:

At that point, what is such a template even saying? "This is a short article"? I think the reader can see that for themselves. I would support just removing any stub templates from articles like

3701:

I'd like it if we could make things look nice and consistent with 0, 1 or 2 blank lines. Maybe there's some template magic that can achieve that and make this discussion a little less important.

2503:

impart what is probably the most important peice of information that readers will be looking for when they come across the name "Xtrynyr" in a book or newspaper and want to find out what it is.

2295:

If the information doesn't already exist on Knowledge (XXG) consideration should be given as to where it is best placed - as a standalone article or as part of a parent or list article, or both.

959:

Some stubs say next to nothing, e.g. "Xtrynyr is a community in Ruritania", with no clue about where the information came from. A stub like this is annoying to users who follow the bluelink to

1594:

for instance is unsourced but clearly looks notable but are we to reject it for not having sources? And how many newish editors know how the referencing works? I didn't for quite some time.

2424:

Stubs should not be created from material already on Knowledge (XXG) unless they contain more information than is in the parent article; either new material should be added to the stub or

1746:". The question is really whether the WP:Stub guideline should restate policy, or at least I think it is. There is no hurry at all, but perhaps at some point a straw poll would be useful. 1347:

presumption of notability, but these present a problem when we're ready to willy-nilly delete articles on television episodes, fictional characters, garage bands, local businesses, etc.

1571:

There should be no limit to how many stubs we can create. If I need to destroy all the red links by creating every village in China, I will do so at a reasonable speed. We are here to

3781:

Marking stub templates as clearly separate from the text of the article which appears above them, since they are "housekeeping", not content, the separation being for the benefit of

2706:

I agree with the comment by Fetchcomms above. Many article do start out as stubs. Banning their creation is counterproductive. Adding guidelines for redirecting stubs is unnecessary

3084:

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.

1728:

information and/or do not quote any source should be "deprecated". My view is that such stubs do not help readers or editors. The comment right at the start of this discussion from

1132:

I do not understand why it is better to have thousands or hundreds of thousands of one-line articles instead of a few dozen or few hundred lists that contain the same information.

1121:

as an example. Articles are usually developed by one or two people. There are enough people in the world who could potentially use wikipedia and have the full range of interests.♦

3353:

there should be any blank lines" immediately underneath my explanation of valid reasons for why there should be blank lines. Please read what you're replying to before you reply!

3405:

Just as it's not my fault that you prefer a personal attack to a reasoned rebuttal. Please stick to the subject at hand, rather than questioning whether I am up to doing a task.

299:

template which has no visible output which just exists to make sure that stub tags don't get re-added by bots or semi-automated tools (though that sounds like an annoying hack).

1438:

referenced to a Tennessee Department of Education database, would be minimally acceptable. It would be better to inform the reader that "Blivet High School was a high school in

1422:

Again I proposed WIkiAtlas to the foundation back in 2009. But I'm not getting what I wanted. And you'll find virtually all geo features if covered in sources will be notable.♦

3681:

Another essay from McCandlish. You sure do like them. You moved on? By crying to the admin who didn't do your page protection request four days after getting shot down? Ho ho.

3332:

Well you're the one being pointy/edit-warring, McCandlish. Discussion here is clear that there's no consensus on the spacing either, so that's been removed. Carry on with your

887:

I decided to delete these. Templates with zero transclusions usually get deleted eventually. And I figured out a way to write my script without depending on these redirects. –

2413:

See discussions above on concerns regarding the usefulness of directory style or very short stubs. Aymatth2 has proposed some new wording (#1) and I have added three more:-

472: 2583:

Requiring that a stub have "useful" information is a very bad idea: who's going to decide what's useful or what's not useful? We shouldn't have such vague requirements.

1169:

be acceptable to you given that sources and information is already there on French wikipedia? I'm gathering that most here (myself included) would frown against ones like

3136: 2278:

which compliments the articles on the individual items in the list, regardless of the length of the individual articles, so creating such a list at any time is desirable.

1451:

state archives likely have much more information than I could find online, for someone to fill in his biographical details. I object to treating any Knowledge (XXG) as a

713:. Of these, BLPPROD can only be used on biographies of living persons, and PROD can only be used if the article has never previously been taken to either PROD or AFD. -- 4073: 2499:

This whole discussion seems to be predicated on the assumption that "Xtrynyr is a community in Ruritania" doesn't impart any useful information, when it self evidently

570: 525: 521: 2110: 162: 3087: 3250:

there should be any blank lines. I've reverted SMcCandlish's bold edit, as the text has been like that for a long, long time, and changes to it need to be via a

588: 3744:

the extra space in the rendered text is displayed via CSS, then the double line can be replaced by a single line. However, this hasn't been implemented, afaik.

3544:

exactly. There needs to be at least one blank line to separate the stub templates from the categories, if only simply for the ease of editing and housekeeping.

176:

Are you sure you are in the right place? I have no idea what you are asking. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is a project coordination and policy page.

2528:"? On another point, I think we should avoid instruction creep on when to redirect - why 7 days? Why not 2 days or 30 days? Each stub is different, after all. 2340:

All of these are, I think, advice rather than rules. But have there been any cases of multiple-part recommendations being successfully taken to a conclusion?

3826:. I have come up with some CSS which will give an increased top margin to the first stub template of a group, leaving the other members of the group alone: 2222:

guideline does not have to be legalistically rigorous to be useful. Expressing a general preference, even if bit vague, is presumably better than nothing.

2171:

This proposal has nothing to do with the way in which articles are created. It would apply to stubs created manually, semi-automatically or automatically.

1199:

passes the criterion of having some useful information (the province) but has no sources. Maybe this is an imaginary lake. I would fail it. I would fail

2175:

says the last two categories need approval, but says nothing about their content. This proposal is to refine the guideline about stub content to say:

1937:

creating stubs? It's merely red link destroying and it has to be done to expand the content of Knowledge (XXG). Stubs are not always stubs - I created

1761:

A3 does not apply to stubs with any meaningful content. A3 is intended for articles with just infoboxes, external links, or a rephrasing of the title.

1707:

is good enough), ideally in the first draft (mostly to save the rest of us from trouble caused by the occasional competence-challenged CSD tagger).

3638:. PS: It's hilarious someone thinks I'm part of a stub-sorting cabal, since I have not touched squat in that area in years (not since I was new and 2274:

There is some support above for collecting linked stubs together as lists. Indeed, it makes sense for a number of topics to have a list article or

1061:

community in the Strznx province of Ruritania with a population of 30 people as of 2002" gives some useful information - but it should be sourced.

432: 1490:

are useless stubs or do you see them as a positive move towards covering poorly documented parts of the world and addressing systematic bias?♦

1007:

Ugh, this is not what A3 is for, despite its misuse. "Xtrynyr is a community in Ruritania" absolutely does not meet A3--read the criteria...

1630:

In regards to myself I only create unsourced stubs on topics intended to be directly transferred from another wikipedia. I have proposed a

747: 735: 2769:. This would do more harm than good by biting new users who will become long-term community members, we do far too much of that already. 1862:

Dr. Blofeld, I suspect that my "rambling" generates more value added to the encyclopedia than all your mass-created stubs put together.

3770:

Marking stub templates as a different "block" of wikitext from other parts of an article, particularly categories, for the benefit of

1025:

Although we certainly would like all new articles to have at least one source, it is not an absolute requirement outside the realm of

4132: 4035: 4009: 3977: 3655: 3316: 3212: 3062: 2853: 2452:

Please indicate if you support or oppose any or all of the suggestions. Further suggestions and amendments are invited and welcome.

1837:

Your point, maybe, though it has not been clearly stated. Your presentation both on Jimbo's page and here is unclear and rambling.

813: 3819: 3175: 3142: 3130: 3124: 378: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1698:

The only restriction I might put on mass stub creation is that if you're creating more than <pick a number greater than 10: -->

2485: 1375: 4090: 3118: 2911:

was tagged as a stub. What exactly is causing overzealous stub tagging like this? Should the entire stub system be overhauled?

2888: 2665: 2156:

is a river in Poland" and what is described in that bot policy. So why are these creations not restricted by that same policy?

1739: 408:, the second bullet point following the "the distinction between dictionary and encyclopedia articles is best expressed by the 269: 212: 185: 3009:

reasons. If we can agree that the spacing above the first stub template is something we want, then let's fix that in CSS. The

2903:

I'm finding that lately, a lot of people seem to think that "stub" means "literally any article that isn't FA". Like, look at

2622:

roads and obscure villages. Just hit "random article" a few times to see the incredible raft of unmaintainable crap we have.

1099: 949: 462: 1704: 827: 356:

and if so, how long does that period last before it is considered that the notability of the subject should be questioned?

2904: 2806:

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

2109:

As far as this discussion is in effect a proposal to require at least one source for a stub, I'd like to point you all to

2095: 1352: 1443: 697:

There aren't. Deletion policy for stubs is exactly the same as for any other article. In short, there are four routes -

3375:

PamD and Peter coxhead both state that the differentiation of stub templates from categories in this way is desirable.

1700: 409: 189: 153:

And, 2. the Kiss of Judas, where the 'Pharisee' on the right directs our attention (and that of the soldiers) to Jesus

2730:: If someone were to create a stub and bearing in mind that the stub could be a small village in the middle of err... 2398: 236:

At the same time, I support the idea of having a separate template for article that we expect to remain stubs forever.

2639:

There is no reason to tolerate any article that does not include substantive information. This strikes me as a clear

1636: 1356:

features, so that when that stub actually can be expanded, its a non-admin action that any editor can undertake. --

2884: 2661: 1470:

I agree Edison, new stubs should really contain one fact and one source standard procedure. @Karanacs do you think

855: 337: 326: 38: 2826: 2439: 2425: 2289: 851: 108: 3907: 3115:

Funny, I searched the archives but forgot to look this page... hidden in plain sight. Some previous discussions:

1439: 1241:. Tall order perhaps but the world is a big place!! I create them because I feel it is important for us to cover 859: 3824:

don't change explicit "two blank lines" to explicit "a blank line", change it to "either one or two blank lines"

2172: 2145: 2720: 1771: 636: 578: 533: 441: 3148: 2998: 158: 142:

3.As for the tree in the Ruisdael,I would refer to it as a 'coulisse' -as in the <Cambridge Dictionary: -->

3959:

It may be worth looking into whether any of the "new" feature of HTML5 can be used here yet (things like the

2997:"It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." 240: 4113: 4103: 4094: 3793: 3749: 3535: 2938: 897: 876: 341: 3292: 2857: 2111:

Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_75#Require_all_new_articles_to_contain_at_least_one_source

143:, meaning 'wing (as in a theatre) I.E. something that functions as a framing device in the picture itself. 2682: 2606: 2508: 2118: 1712: 1620: 1544: 1012: 963:

and find no useful information. This is to propose adding something like the following to this guideline:

863: 4102:

I've added this explanation on the project page. If anyone thinks it is unnecessary, they can remove it.

3284: 3251: 154: 47: 17: 4129: 4080: 4064: 4029: 4003: 3974: 3652: 3313: 3209: 3059: 2924:

Perhaps that article was expanded and someone forgot to remove the stub tag. It's been marked as a stub

2099: 2067: 1903: 1852: 1781:(around 301 or so). There is a lot, like an infinity, of them missing. Someone should get going on that. 1641: 1599: 1558: 1491: 1423: 1380: 1311: 1291: 1263:

as they please about it. Nothing stops consensus from merging articles later, or splitting them either.

1247: 1195:

is fine too. The location is described and shown on the map, and the population is given with a source.

1174: 1122: 1050: 810: 322: 293: 1699:

at a time, then you must add both a category and a citation to a reliable source (which need not be an

1631: 1307: 1200: 1166: 475:, but the last time it was run was 2016. If anyone knows how to run the report, now's the time for it. 244: 146:

In short, it is the images that need to be replaced. I could suggest two Giotto's Arena Chapel images.

3090:, unarchived). Nobody has yet complained about me doing that, and so I still follow that practice. -- 2480: 1988: 1917: 1887: 1865: 1823: 1784: 1675: 1035: 787: 669: 2618:... I hereby support anything that will get rid of the hundreds of thousands of tiny articles about 706: 4046: 3926: 3098: 2977: 2774: 2711: 2601:

is common sense and doesn't need to be added to the rules as vague, non-mandatory recommendations.

2533: 2393: 1762: 1733: 1083: 998: 721: 632: 619: 574: 529: 437: 389: 274: 252: 217: 181: 3050:

case for variance, otherwise is just confuses editors and leads to disputes about interpretation.

1536: 680: 3948: 3789: 3745: 3619: 3588: 3550: 3531: 3411: 3381: 3359: 3234: 2929: 2794: 2695: 2461: 2345: 2311: 2248: 2227: 2193: 2134: 1981: 1945:

a couple of hours after they were announced. They have both made the front page and are massive.

1938: 1751: 1523: 1508: 1332: 1227: 1209: 1137: 1107: 1066: 976: 942: 888: 867: 456: 417: 3288: 2707: 2640: 3569:

Looks like I'm being tag-teamed by the likes of McCandlish and his buddy Peter coxhead. Great!

3468:

tagged onto the same line as the previous template, making it less easy to spot and stub-sort.

1598:

at least shows it as been highlighted as being notable, even if initally lacking in content. ♦

779: 748:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (idea lab) § Why do we customize appearance of stub tags by topic?

736:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (idea lab) § Why do we customize appearance of stub tags by topic?

4074:

Knowledge (XXG):Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#Update stub spacing in Page Curation tool

3160: 3040: 2678: 2602: 2588: 2504: 2263: 2212: 2114: 2041: 1708: 1616: 1540: 1008: 688: 683:

applies. I'm not aware of any special deletion rules or processes that are specific to stubs.

600: 484: 304: 2966: 2880: 2830: 2619: 919: 702: 405: 112: 4124: 4077: 4061: 4025: 3999: 3968: 3646: 3307: 3203: 3186: 3053: 2739: 2646: 2574: 2008: 1950: 1942: 1842: 1808: 1658: 1580: 1460: 1173:

which are as they stand useless. One fact and source minimum requirement I could agree on.♦

830:

are essentially articles built out of tables so the advice you received is hard to defend. ~

804: 520:

The ones I'm aware of are the ones listed at the Unused templates database at the bottom of

361: 3635: 3506: 3301: 3005: 2435: 2275: 1743: 1026: 987: 710: 698: 2876: 2475: 1479: 1409: 1364: 1188: 1154: 1031: 783: 778:

is tabular content to be ignored in assessing whether an article is a stub? The list of

665: 3333: 2380: 2320:

discussion should be structured and facilitated? To me there are a series of ideas here:

1452: 1351:

fully understand the difference, but it is very hard to quell the calls that call out to

3820:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stub/Archive 14#Two blank lines prior to stub templates - revisited

3137:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout/Archive_7#Two_blank_lines_before_the_first_stub.3F

340:

page for a Welcome message and links to information about editing in Knowledge (XXG). -

4057: 4039: 3919: 3809: 3724: 3708: 3478: 3091: 2970: 2770: 2757: 2627: 2529: 2438:

rather than a series of stubs. When the material later grows, it can be split out per

2388: 2161: 2084: 2057: 1980:

pretty much every article starts as a stub, so it's not a surprise that something like

1729: 1487: 1483: 1447: 1079: 991: 835: 714: 612: 553: 506: 382: 286: 264: 248: 207: 202: 177: 4137: 4116: 4106: 4097: 4083: 4067: 4050: 3986: 3954: 3930: 3910:, and viewing an article with several stub templates but just one blank line, such as 3813: 3797: 3753: 3728: 3712: 3689: 3664: 3625: 3607: 3594: 3577: 3556: 3539: 3487: 3430: 3417: 3400: 3387: 3365: 3344: 3325: 3278: 3262: 3240: 3221: 3192: 3163: 3102: 3071: 3043: 2981: 2960: 2943: 2918: 2892: 2861: 2797: 2778: 2761: 2743: 2722: 2698: 2686: 2669: 2652: 2631: 2610: 2592: 2578: 2554: 2537: 2512: 2492: 2464: 2403: 2349: 2314: 2267: 2252: 2231: 2216: 2197: 2165: 2138: 2122: 2104: 2098:. Well its better off having its own article as the vast majority of the others are.♦ 2088: 2072: 2061: 2045: 2012: 1997: 1954: 1926: 1908: 1896: 1874: 1857: 1846: 1832: 1812: 1800: 1773: 1755: 1716: 1684: 1662: 1646: 1624: 1604: 1584: 1563: 1548: 1527: 1512: 1496: 1464: 1428: 1413: 1385: 1368: 1336: 1316: 1296: 1280: 1252: 1231: 1213: 1179: 1141: 1127: 1111: 1087: 1070: 1055: 1039: 1016: 1002: 980: 902: 881: 839: 822: 791: 768: 725: 692: 673: 640: 623: 606: 582: 562: 537: 515: 490: 466: 445: 421: 393: 365: 344: 330: 308: 280: 256: 223: 3943: 3911: 3614: 3583: 3545: 3462: 3458:

against the omission of any blank lines at all - too many articles come through with

3406: 3376: 3354: 3229: 2787: 2550: 2454: 2341: 2304: 2244: 2223: 2189: 2130: 1747: 1519: 1504: 1328: 1276: 1223: 1205: 1133: 1103: 1062: 972: 935: 452: 413: 3349:

Lugnuts, I find it interesting that you write "no-one can provide a valid reason on

2965:

Then revert them, and drop an explanatory note on their talk page directing them to

3775: 3683: 3601: 3571: 3424: 3394: 3338: 3272: 3256: 3178:

never really concluded, but it seemed like the consensus was against double lines.

3156: 3036: 2584: 2259: 2208: 2034: 1653:

have been transferred from foreign Wikipedias or if they are based on real places.

1475: 1471: 684: 628: 593: 477: 300: 3143:

Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_14#Two blank lines prior to stub templates - revisited

1192: 1158: 2446: 2432: 2423: 2417: 4121:

Yes. It's a long-standing technical problem the devs will likely never address.

4076:, which does not seem to be a useful way to spend developer time. Cheers, · · · 3180: 2735: 2570: 2004: 1946: 1838: 1804: 1654: 1576: 1456: 373: 357: 46:

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

2332:

May be better in a parent rather than stand-alone if there is not much content

2302:

It might be appropriate to list this discussion on CENT to get more opinions.

1591: 1402: 1357: 1290:

is practically unsourced though and I think its a very constructive article.♦

3805: 3735: 3720: 3704: 3469: 3023:

To see it in action, go to an article with more than one stub templates (eg

2753: 2623: 2157: 2080: 2053: 1742:) is hard to dispute: "Such pages may be eligible for speedy deletion under 1287: 831: 756: 544: 497: 3014: 1670: 2545: 1271: 3695:

I'm in favor of giving clear direction on this. I don't think that the

2883:. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. 2731: 1503:

wikipedia as a source of information but not as a copy of google maps.

1187:

I should point out that this is a guideline, not a policy. I would say

3697:

leaving at least on blank line makes it easier to find the stub tag(s)

4091:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stub/Archive 7#"But before the inter-Wiki links"

1196: 1170: 1162: 1535:

Non-English sources are just as acceptable as English sources - see

3422:

I'm not questioning if you can do a task, as that's already clear.

233:

bad. Precisely because we have permanent stubs, and that is fine.

2335:

Should be merged into a parent after a while if it has not grown

1310:

if the 1686 fact was sourced that would be bare minimum right?♦

858:? I've started doing this for some species/taxonomy stubs, e.g. 3291:, and you have no real point to make, since this is covered at 1557:

there are too many to consider creating slowly one at a time.♦

611:

You've not? The TfD pages would be a lot emptier without it. --

3703:

Not that it's actually all that important as things stand :) ~

2814: 321:

Vipin Agnihotri is an award winning writer and film director.

96: 25: 3029:) and add the CSS (in Google Chrome: Developer Tool --: --> 1881:"Your point, maybe, though it has not been clearly stated." 850:

Howdy. Is there any harm in creating templates in the form

4038:). It seems to have lost the last phrase at some point. -- 3125:

Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_11#Lines_before_stub_template

2152:

difference between rapidly creating 50 microstubs with "

4020: 4014: 3778:, everyone else seems to be in agreement on this issue. 3267: 3078: 3025: 2925: 1779: 1238: 1222:

If you think they are useless, why do you create them?

1118: 923: 4018:. I have traced the earliest form of that sentence to 3942:

circumstances where blank lines are not "desirable"?)

1153:

What Aymatth2 would be your minimum requirement? Like

986:

Such pages may be eligible for speedy deletion under

3822:

in my post of 16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I suggested

2561:

The wording should say "It should give at least one

2428:

should be used to balance out the weight of material

2372:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

4072:I asked because of a request for a software fix at 1575:an encyclopedia, not to finish it. I rest my case! 431:This is part of a discussion that I've started on 3830:/* Increased top margin for first stub on page */ 2148:, which is part of a policy. Basically, there is 589:Knowledge (XXG):Database reports/Unused templates 289:. If absolutely necessary, maybe we could have a 801:", and judged as a list not as a prose article. 1820:- again, this is completely missing the point. 351:Question - Duration for an article being a Stub 3766:There are two different issues involved here: 3131:Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_11#Two_blank_lines 1442:from 1895 until 1950, when it was merged into 496:become unused until another stub was created. 93:Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2021 3599:Well the stub-sorting clique sure showed me. 2375:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1401:information is lost by the latter process. -- 943: 573:report but hasn't been updated since 2018. -- 8: 3246:Again, no-one can provide a valid reason on 3020:.stub:first-of-type { margin-top: 2rem; } 2520:. I think the wording is good, but perhaps " 4056:Oh dear, a can of worms, reopened. Thanks, 2811:Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 2565:source," not just "It should give at least 336:You are on the wrong page. Please see your 3863:/* but normal for second and subsequent */ 3270:, from a quick check of the page history. 2953:stub tags to articles several pages long. 2928:, when the article was 2 sentences long. – 2299:into a parent or list article if possible. 2144:Perhaps some attention should be given to 950: 936: 746:You are invited to join the discussion at 1191:is fine - plenty of sourced information. 3719:other stuff to set it off for editors. ~ 2879:for discussing improvements to the page 2379:Marking this closed only per request on 1100:List of villages in XXX province, Turkey 133:1.<The 'Oxford Companion to Art': --> 3938:circumstances" (has anyone pointed out 2326:Should say more than the parent article 1933:I wouldn't say there is anything wrong 400:Use-Mention Distinction in introduction 3823: 3083: 2323:Should provide some useful information 406:Knowledge (XXG):Stub#Basic_information 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3906:You can test that by pasting it into 3119:Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_8#Spacing 451:Do we have a link to a list of them? 7: 2366:The following discussion is closed. 915: 913: 3960: 3914:. Try varying the first value from 2524:" is not the best word. How about " 3149:Wikipedia_talk:AutoEd#Stub_spacing 1851:Agreed, Marek stop rambling on!!♦ 1444:Dickson County Central High School 922:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by 24: 4024:at 21:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC) by 3634:Or maybe Lugnuts needs to review 3076:Here's what I wrote on this page 960: 3015:supported in all modern browsers 2867: 2818: 2802:The discussion above is closed. 1376:List of populated places in Peru 741: 168: 100: 29: 2329:Should have at least one source 2096:Aspen (Botkyrka Municipality) ‎ 1879:Speaking of unclear statements 679:The general deletion policy at 3295:. You cannot provide a valid 1396:community suggests that these 1258:The making of stubs should be 769:00:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC) 726:23:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC) 693:22:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC) 674:22:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC) 404:In the introductory paragraph 1: 4122: 3966: 3740:I would certainly agree that 3644: 3305: 3201: 3051: 2905:Carol, Carl, Whoopi and Robin 2798:10:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC) 2779:10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2762:22:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 2744:20:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 2723:19:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 2699:23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 2687:21:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 2670:19:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 2653:21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 2632:20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 2611:14:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 2593:01:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 2404:12:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 856:Template:AlreadyExisting-stub 840:14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 802: 641:18:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC) 624:12:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC) 607:18:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC) 583:23:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 563:07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC) 538:23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 516:23:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 491:23:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 467:23:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 446:22:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 3530:"housekeeping" information. 2579:17:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2555:17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2538:16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2513:14:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2493:02:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2465:02:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2383:, but no doubt, editors are 2350:02:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2315:02:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2268:06:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC) 2253:20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2232:18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2217:17:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2198:16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2166:15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2139:15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2123:14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2105:11:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2089:10:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2073:10:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2062:09:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2046:08:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 2013:20:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1998:18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1955:18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1927:18:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1909:18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1897:06:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1875:17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1858:09:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1847:05:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1833:05:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1813:05:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1774:04:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1756:02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1717:00:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1685:23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1663:22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1647:22:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1625:22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1605:21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1585:21:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1564:21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1549:21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1528:21:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1513:20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1497:20:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1465:20:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1429:20:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1414:20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1386:20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1369:20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1337:13:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC) 1317:20:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1297:22:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1281:20:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1253:20:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1232:20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1214:20:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1180:20:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1142:20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1128:20:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1112:19:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1088:19:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1071:19:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1056:19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1040:19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1017:21:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 1003:19:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 981:17:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 903:04:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC) 882:02:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC) 852:Template:LessCommonName-stub 190:20:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC) 163:20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC) 3017:. This works in Chrome 49: 2845:to reactivate your request. 2833:has been answered. Set the 860:Template:Parastacoidea-stub 823:23:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 792:08:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 587:Holy cats! I've never seen 471:Once upon a time there was 422:22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC) 127:to reactivate your request. 115:has been answered. Set the 4160: 4138:05:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 4117:18:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 4107:16:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 4098:16:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 4084:14:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 4068:14:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 4051:13:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 4015:this clarification request 3512:solution to the real issue 3193:12:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 3164:13:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 3103:11:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 3072:21:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 3044:16:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 2292:and a new article created. 1610:Just dropping by to say I 912: 309:18:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC) 243:, with abbreviations like 3908:Special:MyPage/common.css 2992:Double blank lines, again 2926:since its very first edit 2893:13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) 2862:12:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC) 2442:into a standalone article 1440:Dickson County, Tennessee 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stub 3987:02:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 3955:01:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 3931:07:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 3827: 3814:22:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3798:21:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3754:21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3729:17:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3713:17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3699:is a bullshit argument. 3690:11:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 3665:02:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 3626:01:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 3608:07:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3595:07:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3578:06:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3557:01:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3540:21:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 3488:07:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 3431:11:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 3418:01:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 3401:07:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3388:07:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3366:01:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 3345:10:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 3326:08:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 3279:07:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 3263:07:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 3241:01:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC) 3222:08:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC) 2982:14:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC) 2961:00:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC) 2944:23:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) 2919:23:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) 2899:Not everything is a stub 2804:Please do not modify it. 2369:Please do not modify it. 1306:@Aymatth2 In my opinion 394:20:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC) 366:11:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC) 345:18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC) 331:17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC) 281:02:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 257:13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC) 224:20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 2785:the listing from CENT. 846:Taxonomy stub redirects 410:use–mention distinction 379:WP:There is no deadline 241:Template:Permanent stub 3995:Two blank lines, again 864:Template:Crayfish-stub 239:I'd call the template 3918:to something else. -- 2885:ScottishFinnishRadish 2662:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 1818:Are we agreed that... 433:WikiProject Templates 427:Unused Stub Templates 42:of past discussions. 3176:the previous archive 2967:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 2881:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 2831:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 1705:WP:General reference 1590:new ones coming in. 1260:actively encouraged, 113:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 2644:more, the merrier. 2518:Support 1, 2, and 3 2434:creating a list or 2387:to this change. -- 1353:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 571:Unlisted stub types 3962:...</aside: --> 3633: 3630:Aaaiiieee! It's a 3268:At least from 2008 3174:The discussion in 3088:still on this page 1982:2011 England riots 1939:2011 England riots 1701:WP:Inline citation 1308:Château de Gaujacq 1201:Château de Gaujacq 1167:Château de Gaujacq 918:This article is a 569:There's also this 196:Different template 3951: 3631: 3622: 3591: 3553: 3414: 3384: 3362: 3237: 2942: 2849: 2848: 2708:instruction creep 2436:set index article 2358:Proposed wordings 2276:set index article 1996: 1925: 1895: 1873: 1831: 1792: 1683: 1637:WP:Intertranswiki 1632:User:Transwikibot 1551: 931: 930: 901: 880: 854:that redirect to 828:Stand-alone lists 766: 754: 605: 489: 245:Template:Permstub 131: 130: 90: 89: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4151: 4136: 4042: 4023: 4017: 3985: 3963: 3949: 3922: 3917: 3903: 3900: 3897: 3894: 3891: 3888: 3885: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3864: 3861: 3858: 3855: 3852: 3849: 3846: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3834: 3831: 3739: 3686: 3663: 3620: 3604: 3589: 3574: 3551: 3485: 3476: 3467: 3461: 3427: 3412: 3397: 3382: 3360: 3341: 3324: 3275: 3259: 3235: 3220: 3189: 3183: 3094: 3081: 3079:in November 2012 3070: 3030:Elements --: --> 3012: 2973: 2958: 2956:Ten Pound Hammer 2936: 2934: 2916: 2914:Ten Pound Hammer 2871: 2870: 2840: 2836: 2822: 2821: 2815: 2790: 2718: 2649: 2491: 2488: 2483: 2478: 2457: 2448: 2443: 2429: 2420: 2401: 2396: 2391: 2371: 2307: 2290:WP:Summary style 2102: 2070: 2037: 1995: 1993: 1991:Volunteer Marek 1986: 1943:Operation Ellamy 1924: 1922: 1920:Volunteer Marek 1915: 1906: 1894: 1892: 1890:Volunteer Marek 1885: 1872: 1870: 1868:Volunteer Marek 1863: 1855: 1830: 1828: 1826:Volunteer Marek 1821: 1791: 1789: 1787:Volunteer Marek 1782: 1769: 1682: 1680: 1678:Volunteer Marek 1673: 1644: 1602: 1561: 1534: 1494: 1426: 1406: 1383: 1361: 1314: 1294: 1250: 1177: 1125: 1053: 994: 952: 945: 938: 914: 895: 893: 874: 872: 821: 767: 764: 763: 761: 752: 745: 744: 717: 615: 597: 560: 551: 513: 504: 481: 385: 377: 323:Rachitjournalist 298: 292: 279: 266:Georgia Army Vet 222: 209:Georgia Army Vet 172: 171: 122: 118: 104: 103: 97: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4159: 4158: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4093:, from 2007. - 4078:Peter Southwood 4062:Peter Southwood 4040: 4019: 4013: 3997: 3983: 3920: 3915: 3905: 3904: 3901: 3898: 3895: 3892: 3889: 3886: 3883: 3880: 3877: 3874: 3871: 3868: 3865: 3862: 3859: 3856: 3853: 3850: 3847: 3844: 3841: 3838: 3835: 3832: 3829: 3764: 3733: 3684: 3661: 3602: 3572: 3479: 3470: 3465: 3459: 3425: 3395: 3339: 3322: 3285:WP:REVERTWARing 3273: 3257: 3218: 3187: 3181: 3092: 3077: 3068: 3021: 3010: 3004:Since bots and 2994: 2971: 2954: 2930: 2912: 2901: 2868: 2838: 2834: 2819: 2813: 2808: 2807: 2788: 2712: 2647: 2620:run of the mill 2526:not appropriate 2486: 2481: 2476: 2472: 2455: 2411: 2399: 2394: 2389: 2367: 2360: 2305: 2173:WP:MASSCREATION 2146:WP:MASSCREATION 2100: 2068: 2035: 1989: 1987: 1918: 1916: 1904: 1888: 1886: 1866: 1864: 1853: 1824: 1822: 1785: 1783: 1763: 1725: 1676: 1674: 1642: 1600: 1559: 1492: 1480:Ataliklikun Bay 1453:reliable source 1424: 1404: 1381: 1359: 1312: 1292: 1248: 1189:Ataliklikun Bay 1175: 1155:Ataliklikun Bay 1123: 1051: 992: 957: 956: 911: 889: 868: 848: 819: 800: 776: 757: 755: 751: 742: 739: 715: 661: 613: 591:. Very useful. 554: 545: 507: 498: 429: 402: 383: 371: 353: 319: 317:Vipin Agnihotri 296: 290: 263: 247:as a redirect. 206: 198: 169: 151: 120: 116: 101: 95: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4157: 4155: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4100: 4070: 3996: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3981: 3961:<aside: --> 3935: 3934: 3933: 3828: 3787: 3786: 3784: 3779: 3773: 3763: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3743: 3693: 3692: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3659: 3641: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3513: 3491: 3490: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3320: 3298: 3225: 3224: 3216: 3196: 3195: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3146: 3140: 3134: 3128: 3122: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3066: 3019: 3011::first-of-type 3002: 3001: 2999:WP:STUBSPACING 2993: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2847: 2846: 2823: 2812: 2809: 2801: 2782: 2781: 2764: 2746: 2725: 2715:Alpha_Quadrant 2701: 2689: 2672: 2655: 2634: 2613: 2595: 2581: 2558: 2557: 2540: 2515: 2496: 2495: 2450: 2449: 2444: 2430: 2421: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2362: 2361: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2324: 2300: 2296: 2293: 2285: 2280: 2279: 2271: 2270: 2255: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2177: 2176: 2154:subst:pagename 2142: 2141: 2094:You mentioned 2092: 2091: 2049: 2048: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1877: 1860: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1766:Alpha_Quadrant 1724: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1696: 1692: 1666: 1665: 1628: 1627: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1515: 1488:Buta Territory 1484:Ningi Chiefdom 1468: 1467: 1448:Ambrose Abbott 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1417: 1416: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1265: 1264: 1235: 1234: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1043: 1042: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 969: 968: 955: 954: 947: 940: 932: 929: 928: 910: 907: 906: 905: 847: 844: 843: 842: 825: 817: 798: 775: 772: 738: 734:Discussion at 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 660: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 633:WikiCleanerMan 575:WikiCleanerMan 567: 566: 565: 530:WikiCleanerMan 438:WikiCleanerMan 428: 425: 401: 398: 397: 396: 352: 349: 348: 347: 318: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 287:George A. Loyd 283: 237: 234: 203:George A. Loyd 197: 194: 193: 192: 155:John O'Riordan 148: 129: 128: 105: 94: 91: 88: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4156: 4139: 4134: 4131: 4128: 4127: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4115: 4114:Donald Albury 4110: 4109: 4108: 4105: 4104:Donald Albury 4101: 4099: 4096: 4095:Donald Albury 4092: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4081: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4069: 4065: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4037: 4034: 4031: 4027: 4022: 4016: 4011: 4008: 4005: 4001: 3994: 3988: 3979: 3976: 3973: 3971: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3953: 3952: 3945: 3941: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3913: 3909: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3790:Peter coxhead 3782: 3780: 3777: 3774:. Other than 3771: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3761: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3746:Peter coxhead 3741: 3737: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3691: 3688: 3687: 3680: 3666: 3657: 3654: 3651: 3649: 3639: 3637: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3624: 3623: 3616: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3606: 3605: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3593: 3592: 3585: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3576: 3575: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3558: 3555: 3554: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3532:Peter coxhead 3528: 3527: 3511: 3508: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3489: 3486: 3484: 3483: 3477: 3475: 3474: 3464: 3456: 3455: 3432: 3429: 3428: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3416: 3415: 3408: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3399: 3398: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3386: 3385: 3378: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3364: 3363: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3343: 3342: 3335: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3310: 3303: 3296: 3294: 3293:WP:CONTENTAGE 3290: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3277: 3276: 3269: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3261: 3260: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3239: 3238: 3231: 3223: 3214: 3211: 3208: 3206: 3198: 3197: 3194: 3191: 3190: 3184: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3165: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3150: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3138: 3135: 3132: 3129: 3126: 3123: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3056: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3032: 3028: 3027: 3018: 3016: 3007: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2957: 2952: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2935: 2933: 2932:Novem Linguae 2927: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2915: 2910: 2906: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2844: 2841:parameter to 2832: 2828: 2824: 2817: 2816: 2810: 2805: 2800: 2799: 2796: 2795: 2792: 2791: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2747: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2726: 2724: 2721: 2719: 2717: 2716: 2709: 2705: 2702: 2700: 2697: 2696:TheCatalyst31 2693: 2690: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2673: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2656: 2654: 2651: 2650: 2642: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2614: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2541: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2516: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2484: 2479: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2459: 2458: 2445: 2441: 2440:Summary style 2437: 2431: 2427: 2426:Summary style 2422: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2405: 2402: 2397: 2392: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2373: 2370: 2364: 2363: 2357: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2334: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2312: 2309: 2308: 2301: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2256: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2097: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2071: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2030: 2029: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1994: 1992: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1921: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1893: 1891: 1882: 1878: 1876: 1871: 1869: 1861: 1859: 1856: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1829: 1827: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801:verifiability 1798: 1797: 1790: 1788: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1768: 1767: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1681: 1679: 1671: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1638: 1633: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1603: 1595: 1593: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1565: 1562: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1516: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1495: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1435: 1430: 1427: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1399: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1377: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1354: 1350: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1315: 1309: 1298: 1295: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1251: 1244: 1240: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1120: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1000: 996: 989: 985: 984: 983: 982: 978: 974: 966: 965: 964: 962: 953: 948: 946: 941: 939: 934: 933: 927: 925: 921: 916: 908: 904: 899: 894: 892: 891:Novem Linguae 886: 885: 884: 883: 878: 873: 871: 870:Novem Linguae 865: 861: 857: 853: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 826: 824: 815: 812: 809: 807: 796: 795: 794: 793: 789: 785: 780: 773: 771: 770: 762: 760: 749: 737: 733: 727: 723: 719: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 695: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 659:Stub deletion 658: 642: 638: 634: 630: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 610: 609: 608: 603: 602: 596: 595: 590: 586: 585: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 561: 559: 558: 552: 550: 549: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 518: 517: 514: 512: 511: 505: 503: 502: 494: 493: 492: 487: 486: 480: 479: 474: 470: 469: 468: 464: 461: 458: 454: 450: 449: 448: 447: 443: 439: 434: 426: 424: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 399: 395: 391: 387: 380: 375: 370: 369: 368: 367: 363: 359: 350: 346: 343: 342:Donald Albury 339: 335: 334: 333: 332: 328: 324: 316: 310: 306: 302: 295: 288: 284: 282: 278: 277: 273: 272: 268: 267: 260: 259: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 238: 235: 232: 228: 227: 226: 225: 221: 220: 216: 215: 211: 210: 204: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 167: 166: 165: 164: 160: 156: 147: 144: 140: 136: 126: 123:parameter to 114: 110: 106: 99: 98: 92: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4125: 4032: 4012:) has added 4006: 3998: 3969: 3947: 3939: 3804:template. ~ 3788: 3765: 3700: 3696: 3694: 3682: 3647: 3618: 3600: 3587: 3570: 3549: 3481: 3480: 3472: 3471: 3423: 3410: 3393: 3380: 3358: 3350: 3337: 3308: 3283:That's just 3271: 3255: 3252:WP:CONSENSUS 3247: 3233: 3226: 3204: 3182:McLerristarr 3179: 3054: 3033: 3024: 3022: 3013:selector is 3003: 2955: 2950: 2931: 2913: 2908: 2902: 2875:this is the 2872: 2850: 2842: 2827:edit request 2803: 2793: 2786: 2783: 2766: 2748: 2727: 2714: 2713: 2703: 2691: 2679:Phil Bridger 2674: 2657: 2645: 2636: 2615: 2603:Calliopejen1 2597: 2566: 2562: 2544: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2505:Phil Bridger 2500: 2473: 2460: 2453: 2451: 2412: 2384: 2374: 2368: 2365: 2310: 2303: 2204: 2153: 2149: 2143: 2115:Calliopejen1 2108: 2093: 2065: 2050: 2033: 1990: 1934: 1919: 1889: 1880: 1867: 1825: 1817: 1786: 1765: 1764: 1736: 1726: 1723:Random break 1709:WhatamIdoing 1677: 1667: 1629: 1617:Calliopejen1 1611: 1596: 1588: 1572: 1570: 1541:Calliopejen1 1476:Urara Island 1472:Watom Island 1469: 1397: 1392: 1372: 1348: 1345: 1305: 1270: 1259: 1242: 1236: 1152: 1009:Calliopejen1 970: 958: 924:expanding it 917: 909:Minimum size 890: 869: 849: 805: 777: 758: 740: 662: 599: 592: 556: 555: 547: 546: 509: 508: 500: 499: 483: 476: 459: 430: 403: 354: 320: 275: 270: 265: 230: 218: 213: 208: 199: 173: 152: 145: 141: 137: 132: 124: 109:edit request 78: 43: 37: 4126:SMcCandlish 4026:SMcCandlish 4000:Pbsouthwood 3970:SMcCandlish 3648:SMcCandlish 3632:conspiracy! 3309:SMcCandlish 3205:SMcCandlish 3055:SMcCandlish 2854:43.226.13.8 2567:one source. 2129:guideline. 2101:Dr. Blofeld 2069:Dr. Blofeld 1905:Dr. Blofeld 1854:Dr. Blofeld 1643:Dr. Blofeld 1601:Dr. Blofeld 1560:Dr. Blofeld 1493:Dr. Blofeld 1425:Dr. Blofeld 1382:Dr. Blofeld 1313:Dr. Blofeld 1293:Dr. Blofeld 1249:Dr. Blofeld 1176:Dr. Blofeld 1124:Dr. Blofeld 1052:Dr. Blofeld 806:SMcCandlish 629:Her Pegship 594:Her Pegship 478:Her Pegship 36:This is an 3912:Dastarkhān 3890:margin-top 3845:margin-top 3762:Two issues 3334:disruption 3297:reason why 3287:to make a 3026:Solenopora 2835:|answered= 2767:Oppose all 2728:Oppose all 2704:Oppose All 2692:Oppose all 2675:Oppose all 2658:Oppose all 2648:Jim Miller 2637:Oppose all 2598:Oppose all 2522:deprecated 2419:deprecated 1592:Helmipuuro 1032:Beeblebrox 971:Comments? 784:Rathfelder 707:WP:BLPPROD 666:MarydaleEd 229:Stubs are 117:|answered= 85:Archive 16 79:Archive 15 73:Archive 14 68:Archive 13 60:Archive 10 4060:. · · · 4058:Redrose64 4021:this edit 3035:either). 2877:talk page 2873:Not done: 2771:Thryduulf 2530:bobrayner 1744:WP:CSD#A3 1730:Redrose64 1537:WP:NONENG 1391:Which we 1288:Giunssani 1193:Gbégourou 1159:Gbégourou 1080:RadioKAOS 988:WP:CSD#A3 681:WP:DELETE 453:Cas Liber 294:permastub 249:Debresser 178:Elliot321 174:Not done: 4036:contribs 4010:contribs 3944:Grutness 3615:Grutness 3584:Grutness 3546:Grutness 3407:Grutness 3377:Grutness 3355:Grutness 3289:WP:POINT 3230:Grutness 2789:SilkTork 2641:WP:Creep 2563:reliable 2456:SilkTork 2342:Aymatth2 2306:SilkTork 2245:Novickas 2224:Aymatth2 2190:Aymatth2 2131:Aymatth2 1748:Aymatth2 1740:contribs 1520:Karanacs 1505:Hugo.arg 1329:Aymatth2 1224:Karanacs 1206:Aymatth2 1165:. Would 1134:Karanacs 1104:Karanacs 1063:Aymatth2 973:Aymatth2 799:whatever 473:a report 463:contribs 414:MeekMark 271:Contribs 214:Contribs 186:contribs 3783:readers 3776:Lugnuts 3772:editors 3685:Lugnuts 3603:Lugnuts 3573:Lugnuts 3426:Lugnuts 3396:Lugnuts 3340:Lugnuts 3274:Lugnuts 3258:Lugnuts 3157:jonkerz 3037:jonkerz 2749:Support 2732:Moldova 2616:Support 2585:Nyttend 2385:opposed 2260:Jessemv 2209:llywrch 2036:Lugnuts 1243:notable 961:Xtrynyr 703:WP:PROD 685:Colin M 526:page 17 522:page 16 301:Colin M 262:this.-- 39:archive 4043:rose64 3923:rose64 3636:WP:1AM 3507:WP:BRD 3302:WP:BRD 3188:Mclay1 3151:(2015) 3145:(2011) 3139:(2010) 3133:(2009) 3127:(2009) 3121:(2007) 3095:rose64 3086:(it's 3031:"+"). 3006:WP:AWB 2974:rose64 2736:Jaguar 2571:Edison 2005:Jaguar 1947:Jaguar 1884:stubs. 1839:Edison 1805:Edison 1655:Jaguar 1612:oppose 1577:Jaguar 1457:Edison 1197:Axaren 1171:Axaren 1163:Axaren 1027:WP:BLP 995:rose64 774:Tables 718:rose64 711:WP:AFD 699:WP:CSD 616:rose64 386:rose64 374:GUtt01 358:GUtt01 3878:table 3866:table 3833:table 2839:|ans= 2825:This 2551:talk 2482:COMMS 2477:ƒETCH 2381:WP:AN 1695:work. 1691:know. 1573:build 1398:don't 1393:don't 1277:talk 121:|ans= 107:This 16:< 4047:talk 4045:🌹 ( 4030:talk 4004:talk 3950:wha? 3927:talk 3884:stub 3872:stub 3839:stub 3810:talk 3806:Kvng 3794:talk 3750:talk 3736:Kvng 3725:talk 3721:Kvng 3709:talk 3705:Kvng 3621:wha? 3590:wha? 3552:wha? 3536:talk 3463:stub 3413:wha? 3383:wha? 3361:wha? 3236:wha? 3161:talk 3099:talk 3041:talk 2978:talk 2976:🌹 ( 2969:. -- 2939:talk 2909:That 2889:talk 2858:talk 2775:talk 2758:talk 2754:Deor 2740:talk 2683:talk 2666:talk 2628:talk 2624:Gigs 2607:talk 2589:talk 2575:talk 2534:talk 2509:talk 2501:does 2395:(t) 2346:talk 2264:talk 2249:talk 2228:talk 2213:talk 2194:talk 2162:talk 2158:Fram 2135:talk 2119:talk 2085:talk 2081:Fram 2058:talk 2054:Fram 2042:talk 2009:talk 1951:talk 1941:and 1935:with 1843:talk 1809:talk 1752:talk 1734:talk 1713:talk 1703:; a 1659:talk 1621:talk 1581:talk 1545:talk 1524:talk 1509:talk 1461:talk 1405:ASEM 1360:ASEM 1333:talk 1239:this 1228:talk 1210:talk 1138:talk 1119:this 1108:talk 1084:talk 1067:talk 1036:talk 1013:talk 999:talk 990:. -- 977:talk 920:stub 898:talk 877:talk 836:talk 832:Kvng 788:talk 759:Sdkb 753:{{u| 722:talk 720:🌹 ( 709:and 689:talk 670:talk 637:talk 620:talk 618:🌹 ( 579:talk 534:talk 528:. -- 524:and 457:talk 442:talk 418:talk 390:talk 388:🌹 ( 381:. -- 362:talk 338:talk 327:talk 305:talk 276:Talk 253:talk 219:Talk 182:talk 159:talk 4135:😼 4041:Red 3984:ⱷ≼ 3980:≽ⱷ҅ 3946:... 3940:any 3921:Red 3916:4em 3818:At 3662:ⱷ≼ 3658:≽ⱷ҅ 3617:... 3586:... 3548:... 3473:Pam 3409:... 3379:... 3357:... 3351:why 3323:ⱷ≼ 3319:≽ⱷ҅ 3248:why 3232:... 3219:ⱷ≼ 3215:≽ⱷ҅ 3093:Red 3069:ⱷ≼ 3065:≽ⱷ҅ 2972:Red 2959:• 2951:add 2917:• 2837:or 2829:to 2546:DGG 2400:(e) 1272:DGG 1161:or 993:Red 862:to 820:ⱷ≼ 816:≽ⱷ҅ 750:. 716:Red 614:Red 548:Pam 501:Pam 384:Red 231:not 119:or 111:to 4123:— 4082:: 4066:: 4049:) 3967:— 3929:) 3854:em 3812:) 3796:) 3752:) 3742:if 3727:) 3711:) 3645:— 3538:) 3466:}} 3460:{{ 3306:— 3254:. 3202:— 3185:| 3101:) 3082:: 3052:— 2980:) 2907:. 2891:) 2860:) 2843:no 2777:) 2760:) 2742:) 2710:. 2685:) 2668:) 2630:) 2609:) 2591:) 2577:) 2553:) 2536:) 2511:) 2390:DQ 2348:) 2266:) 2251:) 2230:) 2215:) 2205:is 2196:) 2164:) 2150:no 2137:) 2121:) 2087:) 2060:) 2044:) 2011:) 1953:) 1845:) 1811:) 1754:) 1715:) 1661:) 1623:) 1583:) 1547:) 1539:. 1526:) 1511:) 1486:, 1482:, 1478:, 1474:, 1463:) 1412:) 1367:) 1335:) 1279:) 1230:) 1212:) 1157:, 1140:) 1110:) 1086:) 1069:) 1038:) 1015:) 1001:) 979:) 838:) 803:— 790:) 765:}} 724:) 705:, 701:, 691:) 672:) 639:) 622:) 581:) 536:) 465:) 444:) 436:-- 420:) 392:) 364:) 329:) 307:) 297:}} 291:{{ 255:) 188:) 184:| 161:) 125:no 64:← 4133:¢ 4130:☏ 4033:· 4028:( 4007:· 4002:( 3982:ᴥ 3978:¢ 3975:☏ 3972:☺ 3925:( 3902:} 3899:; 3896:0 3893:: 3887:{ 3881:. 3875:+ 3869:. 3860:} 3857:; 3851:4 3848:: 3842:{ 3836:. 3808:( 3792:( 3748:( 3738:: 3734:@ 3723:( 3707:( 3660:ᴥ 3656:¢ 3653:☏ 3650:☺ 3640:I 3534:( 3482:D 3321:ᴥ 3317:¢ 3314:☏ 3311:☺ 3217:ᴥ 3213:¢ 3210:☏ 3207:☺ 3159:♠ 3097:( 3067:ᴥ 3063:¢ 3060:☏ 3057:☺ 3039:♠ 2941:) 2937:( 2887:( 2856:( 2773:( 2756:( 2738:( 2681:( 2664:( 2626:( 2605:( 2587:( 2573:( 2549:( 2532:( 2507:( 2487:/ 2474:/ 2344:( 2262:( 2247:( 2226:( 2211:( 2192:( 2160:( 2133:( 2117:( 2083:( 2056:( 2040:( 2007:( 1949:( 1841:( 1807:( 1750:( 1737:· 1732:( 1711:( 1672:. 1657:( 1619:( 1579:( 1543:( 1522:( 1507:( 1459:( 1410:t 1408:( 1403:M 1365:t 1363:( 1358:M 1349:I 1331:( 1275:( 1226:( 1208:( 1136:( 1106:( 1082:( 1065:( 1034:( 1011:( 997:( 975:( 951:e 944:t 937:v 926:. 900:) 896:( 879:) 875:( 834:( 818:ᴥ 814:¢ 811:☏ 808:☺ 786:( 687:( 668:( 635:( 604:) 601:? 598:( 577:( 557:D 532:( 510:D 488:) 485:? 482:( 460:· 455:( 440:( 416:( 376:: 372:@ 360:( 325:( 303:( 251:( 180:( 157:( 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Stub/Archive 15 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index