Wikipedia talk:Stub

message: This was originally raised at WP:VPI, see the discussion there for context. I think it's time to remove the bit about stub icons being "discouraged". As  and  pointed out, it's a now outdated Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance issue. Furthermore, it's completely out of sync with reality- almost all stub templates have associated stub "icons". In short, I propose removing the following line:
Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would keep the second half - the free image & 40px requirements are I think generally accepted (plus are common sense). Something like An image used as a stub template icon must be public domain or have a free license—fair use images must not be used in templates. Stub icons should be small, preferably no more than about 40px in size., perhaps? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Yep. I agree with this kind of phrasing. cc Taavi and EEng who participated in the VPI but not here SWinxy (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on stub icons out of date. 

message: I feel like this has been at the root of a lot of recent disputes about notability, article creation, article deletion, and stub, so it feels worth considering whether we can tackle the question directly and (eventually, not necessarily here) reach a consensus on this. My interpretation of policy has always been that a stub's sole purpose is to serve as a temporary, incomplete state which must (notionally) eventually be filled out into a complete article - stubs with no potential to ever become a complete article (using current existing coverage, not WP:CRYSTALBALL possibilities of future coverage) are undesirable, and intentionally creating them is not proper and should be discouraged. Of course, in practice since someone has to do the work to fill out a stub, it can remain in that state indefinitely, just like unexceptional and uncontroversial things can remain uncited indefinitely or other incomplete things can linger until someone has the time to fix or complete them; but it's always supposed to be possible to complete it - the sources must exist somewhere, even if we don't have them yet. A stub is like an uncited paragraph - it can linger until someone has time to fill it out, but the presumption is that the sources exist, and if they don't then it shouldn't have been created. Is this how most people see stubs, and should we add guidelines or even policies somewhere indicating that "permastubs" with no potential to become a full article to be avoided? --Aquillion (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's an inherent problem with stubs. If a stub has no hope of being expanded, that shouldn't weigh in to a deletion discussion,  notability should. The one kind of stub I believe should be deleted (regardless of notability) are ones that provide the same information as any directory or database. The all-too-common  is a sad example of this problem. These articles can rarely be expanded, and contain only lists of species redlinks, with maybe one actually notable species. Permastubs, in my view, aren't generally a problem, unless they regurgitate database-style information like the example above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of GBIF. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are permanent stubs, with no potential to become a full article, acceptable? 

message: The redirect Wiki:stub has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Wiki:stub]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]