I just want to clarify my statement that it is best to divide topics into digestible bits. I think this should only be considered for most articles once they reach the 20 KB (minus markup) size and the resulting daughter articles are not stubs. Although some articles demand a larger size just to summarize all the main points and clearly link to daughters that have move detail on each of those points. An example article that I really like in this regard is [[Germany]] (especially its history secton and the [[History of Germany]] daughter article): http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany There the parent article, [[Germany]], has several paragraphs giving a very broad summary of German history. A prominent link is given to [[History of Germany]]. The daughter article [[History of Germany]] summarizes each of the major periods of German history. Each section has a prominent "Main article" link to grandchildren articles about those specific periods of German history. And of course any distinct subjects like people, places or things have inline links to articles on those things. This is the type of organization I like. However preemptively making stubs to follow this structure is a really bad thing to do; let each article grow until it starts to reach a size where readability and editability would be improved by summarizing certain areas and moving the detail to daughter articles. I absolutely /hate/ it when people just cut an entire section out of an article like ==History== and only leave a [[History of X]] link in that section. In those cases, it is /far/ better to leave in the detailed history even if it pushes the article's size way above 32 KB. A summary of the history must accompany any "main article" link like that, IMO. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)