Template talk:Stub

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconStub sorting
WikiProject iconThis template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

interwiki (es)[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please link this to tamil ""குறுங்கட்டுரை வார்ப்புருக்கள்"" interwiki -தமிழ்க்குரிசில் 14:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by தமிழ்க்குரிசில் (talkcontribs) Please, quit remove the es:Plantilla:Esbozo interwiki. Thanks. ~~×α£đ ~~es 16:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

es:Plantilla:Esbozo is not used anymore. In the Spanish Wikipedia stubs are supposed to be recognized by the user, and no additional message is required. Therefore, es:Plantilla:Esbozo is not a correct interwiki for en:Template:Stub. (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Xclamation point 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{editprotected}}  Not done I can still clearly see the link to the Spanish version! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like most templates, the interwiki links are held in the /doc subpage which is not protected. Please make the change yourself. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks... was too busy looking at Template:Stub documentation. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placing Area[edit]

Is it allowed for this template to be placed at the top of the article, not at the bottom? Thanks, electricRush (T C) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No - it should never appear at the top. See Wikipedia:Stub#How to mark an article as a stub for details of where the template should be placed and why. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arthur Korn (1891 -1978)[edit]

Architect and townplanner. Born Breslau 1891. Died Klosterneuberg, Austria, on 14 November 1978. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danprzewoz (talkcontribs) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the place to propose new articles. Just make them, or go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Grutness...wha? 22:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interwiki (de)[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please add de:Vorlage:Lückenhaft. Guy Peters TalkContributionsEdit counter 09:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category name[edit]

I propose that the category on this template should be named Category:Uncategorized stubs and not simply Category:Stubs. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been proposed before and rejected - but if you want to, the place to do that would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals rather than here. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have a proposal to improve this stub perhaps it should be put in a box and have the Wikipedia logo next to it, just to raise awareness that it is the official Wikipedia stub. Don't get me wrong it is a fantastic design you must have worked hard and I don't want you to take my ideas the wrong way, they are merely suggestions. Anyway, tell me what you think. Thanks. L07ChLeo3 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An understandable suggestion, but if you look through the archives of this page, you'll see that there have been similar proposals several times in the past and they've all been rejected. Stub messages are supposed to remain as discreet as possible, so as not to disrupt articles - putting them in a box defeats that purpose. As for it being "the official Wikipedia stub", there are several thousand official Wikipedia stub templates - this is simply the generic one (one which, theoretically at least, shouldn't really be used; stubs should all be given more specific stub types). So no offence intended - as I said, it's an understandable suggestion - but I doubt it would find too much favour. Grutness...wha? 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay sorry my mistake I was hasty and rushed into things, you're right where it says that fancy stubs disrupt articles, thanks for reviewing my suggestions. L07ChLeo3 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Instead of making it plain text, why don't we make it an ambox template, like Template:Cleanup? I am suggesting this because it would make it more noticeable. (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the archives of this page and Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Stub sorting for the numerous times this has been suggested before. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, you don't even need to check the archives - check the item above this on this page! Grutness...wha? 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally responding as a user. Sorry about that. . . ;( ShadeofTime09 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) (formerly[reply]

Doc subpage[edit]

Just noticed that this has been reverted before. However I still think it would be beneficial. It is common practice to have the interwikis in a subpage so that they can be edited without having to raise edit requests. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've nominated this for deletion at WP:SFD - as much as a procedural thing as for my personal views that it will create a lot of problems. As has been explained many times in the past, it is deliberate that stub pages have no /doc file. However, a formal SFD for this may be the opportunity to express opinions one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every other stub template lies in the category in which it populates. Therefore it seems reasonable and consistent that this template should be in Category:Stubs ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the archives of this page - it used to be listed in Category:Stubs, but was removed after repeated complaints and suggestions that it be removed. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. That's odd - I can't find it. I know it was discussed (I was one of those who thought it was a bad idea and that the template should be listed in the category, but most were definitely in favour of the template not being listed. Over time I've come to agree with them - this one stub template is far better not shown). Discussion was around late 2005, IIRC - may have been discussed at one of WP:WSS's talk pages rather than here. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose it's reasonable that this template is special case. Category:Stubs is more like a cleanup category so I can see where they are coming from. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, could this section be put under Examples of Russell's Paradox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimw338 (talkcontribs) 02:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Today the template Template:Stub is suddenly appearing in the category Category:Stubs. The template doesn't appear to have been edited since Sept 2011, so something else has changed. Any ideas what's changed and how we can change it back?
I'm asking this both at Template talk:Stub and at Category talk:Stubs. PamD 22:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New design[edit]

{{Editprotected}} I think I have come up with a more "in your face" attention grabbing design. I think this would make it more noticeable and no longer hidden inside the article's text. Also, it's flashy and adds color and flair. MoldyOrange 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
I think you'll need to get some discussion going for this one... — RockMFR 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think, rather, that you need to check the archives of this page for the reasons why similar suggestions have been rejected on numerous occasions in the past. The aim of a stub template is to be as discreet as possible, which is why it sits at the bottom of the page with no box. We deliberately try to make sure that it is not "in your face". Grutness...wha? 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aww, okay. Thanks anyway! MoldyOrange 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
could we use this design in template:stub I think it is a good design because it bigger it includes a picture of the wikipedia logo and it has a boarder so that you can tell its not a part off the template or article (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
could we use this design it uses the template from template:stub: (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More talk of changes[edit]

Please note a nascent discussion regarding this template at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Changing_the_stub_template. Shereth 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editprotected request involving this template[edit]

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)(background check) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add a picture into this Template[edit]

Hello! I'm a wikipedian and I also do some edit in Chinese Wikipedia. In Chinese Wikipedia, there's a picture in this template. I think it's a really good idea for readers to distinguish this template from other words. However, there's no photos like that in English Wikipedia! As a result, I think wikipedians who has the power to edit protected pages should add a similar picture in this template. --Jack No1 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing to a different stub template[edit]

If an article is in this category: Category:Stubs I can change the stub type. *Adjkasi* (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could somebody convert this to Template:Ambox? AnnaHendren (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, all stub templates are intentionally built around {{asbox}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asbox can be converted. (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would you even want to change it, anyway? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please would some one create a stub category and change the text on template:stub so that when an article is a stub it goes into that category and then people can help improve the article like this one ms:Templat:Tunas Google9999 (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean like Category:Stub categories? Delsion23 (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what I mean is could someone create a stub category so every page with the word
goes in there including the one for arts and many more different types of stubs so it would be easer for people to pages which need expanding please (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done: This is the wrong template - you want Template:Asbox. However, before you make a request there, you should ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and see what they say about your idea. Note also that you might be able to do something like what you are looking for with CatScan. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal that {{stub}} should be added with small "s"[edit]

If {{Stub}} is added, then a stub-sorter changing it to {{England-footy-bio-stub}} etc has to delete the "S" and retype "s". If {{stub}} is added, it saves the stub-sorter a couple of keystrokes - potentially many times a day.

I propose that the wording in "Usage" be modified to read:

Typing {{stub}} produces the message shown at the top, and adds the article to the following category:
Category:stubs (Population: 1)
Note that {{stub}} should be used rather than {{Stub}}, because it saves work for an editor amending the stub to a specific stub template such as {{painting-stub}}.

(ie change the case of the template in 1st line, and add explanation in last sentence).

Any thoughts? PamD 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: pointy oppose making personal attack on proposer and not addressing the issue at hand. PamD 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointy response! If you knew the policy/guidance regarding this very template in your stub-sorting duties, you wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know how many articles I've stub sorted but capitalisation has never really caused a big problem. You could say the same going from {{Footy-bio-stub}} to {{England-footy-bio-stub}}. Yes, using lower case where possibly would save a couple of keystrokes down the line, but I'd rather not create rules for the purpose of having rules. Severo (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, if you don't sort many stubs you won't have found it a problem. All instances of {[tl|Stub}} or {[tl|stub}} are edited to more specific stub templates; only a very small minority of specific stub tags need to be further edited (and {{Footy-bio-stub}} would only be assigned in a rare case where the article didn't indicate the person's country or even continent). Who said anything about "Rules for the purpose of having rules"? This is a proposed improvement whereby editors' time can be saved. PamD 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • StRoNgLy oPpOsE. The top of the page you are reading says "Template talk:Stub", not "Template talk:stub". The solution is not to try to force others to accommodate your workflow, but rather to ask someone to create a tool that automates the process for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I can't imagine what sort of automation could replace the one-by-one processing involved in stub-sorting: rather than ask someone to create a complex beast like that, why not ask editors to save the key-stroke of using "S", just type plain "s", and make life easier for other editors. Wins all round. PamD 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: They're the same template, but an editor can save another editor a little work by adding {{stub}}. Why do you object to this, I wonder? PamD 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you could provide evidence of the raft of editors who are having hours and hours of their lives wasted by the difference between S/s, then maybe your proposal would have some merit. Do you have this evidence? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: How depressing: an instant flurry of objections to what seemed to me to be a sensible proposal. I considered leaving the project in response to such unhelpful and uncollegial reactions, but then found more agreeable interactions elsewhere which cheered me a little. PamD 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Nobody is being uncollegial or disagreeable, and your proposal is not a sensible one. You are casting aspersions on other editors for daring to disagree with you. Please stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suggestion: I admit I find initial capitalisation annoying sometimes, although as mentioned above it happens with many sub-stub types, not just this one. As far as I am aware, most additions of the plain stub template are done by automated or semi-automated tools - I think the biggest contributor is new page curation? I think making this a 'rule' would just be introducing an extra rule for the sake of it for very little gain, but we could get far more benefit for little cost by asking that those tools use a small s. --Qetuth (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree with PamD. There are many other cases of maintenance templates that use lowercase initial, as for instance the large family of {{db}} templates (Note that it's not {{Db}}!). C'mon, asking people in the documentation to type {{stub}} instead of {{Stub}} won't hurt anyone. —capmo (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi could we just create a doc for stub instead of having 3 different documentation please could we put information into doc please (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi I propose that all stub template have category:stubs added to them so that stubs category has every article which has a stub template on them (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This gets proposed now and then - the issue is that there are too many for this to be workable or useful. There are several hundred thousand stub articles. --Qetuth (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what I mean is implant the category into the stub template just like this stub template (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Category:Stubs is supposed to be empty, or nearly so; if an article appears in that category, it is an indication that its {{stub}} must be replaced with something more specific. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The purpose of {{stub}} is to allow stubs to be marked as such by users (or automated/semi-automated tools) who have no idea what stub templates they should use; Category:Stubs is a place for these articles to land, so that stub sorters can start to deal with them. I did nominate to have the category renamed to Category:Unsorted stubs, but it clearly wasn't going to pass. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 7 July 2013[edit]

Hi, may an admin help me to add File:Wiki_letter_w.svg to the beginning of the template? I see that all stub templates have pictures, but this one is an exception. Thanks.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Not all stub templates have images, see Category:Stub message templates without images. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This template is one which shouldn't be on a page for any length of time, and I think it's better if it looks plain and inconspicuous: it doesn't need an image. On the other hand, I'm always surprised when a subject-specific stub doesn't have an image, and would encourage them to be added to the 1,767 templates in the list cited above! PamD 09:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture needed[edit]

This article needs a picture of the Wikipedia puzzle piece. Otherwise the template would look like a hatnote.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, please see section immediately above. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about just a puzzle piece with a question mark?
Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a problem with File:Wiki letter w.svg as such; the consensus is no image. There are plenty of threads above, and in the archives of this page, that have rejected such proposals in the past. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, is it true that if you add a default image to the stub template, then all stub templates including ones with non-default pictures will have the default image?
Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh... It is no. But in the Simple English Wikipedia, why is there still that "Wikipedia letter w" picture? That is the reason why so many people demand so much for that "Wikipedia letter w" picture.
Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policies and practices of other Wikipedias have no bearing on the practices of the English Wikipedia. But who are "so many"? There are four people on this page, yourself included, who have requested this. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why cannot you add a picture? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because, as has been stated repeatedly, {{stub}} is intentionally pictureless. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not adding stubs to category?[edit]

It seems that for the last couple of weeks the {{stub}} template has not been adding articles to Category:Stubs. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#How_long_has_this_been_broken.3F. PamD 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2015[edit]

Hello! I would like to update this template as it is locked for only administrators. I have been working on a new template that looks like this:

It looks a lot more updated with the border. I would appreciate if an admin could add it if they think it is appropriate. The coding for it is <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub" style="background: #ffd; border: 2px solid yellow; margin: 0 5em; padding: 0.5em">[[File:Stubb.jpg|50px|left]]'''The article "{{PAGENAME}}" is a Stub.<br/>''' <small>Stubs are articles with relatively sparse information, but can be replenished with more. Please help by [[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|adding more content]]!</div></small> This version isn't too crazy or "in your face," it is simple and small. Yellow (for me at least) is harder to see than red, blue, black, etc. Thanks!

ᵗʰᵉʰºᵗʷʰᵉᵉˡˢᵍᵘʸ₉₉ (ᵗᵃˡᵏ!) 00:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for offering to update the Stub template's style, but you will need to obtain consensus for this change. Redesigns have been periodically suggested and they've always been met with resistance (see #New design, #Picture needed and so on). Alakzi (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thehotwheelsguy99: What Alakzi said. Also, there are two other reasons why this should not be done: first, the {{stub}} template should be rarely used - those few articles that may currently bear a {{stub}} will soon have it replaced by a more specific stub template because of stub sorting; second, {{stub}} is built around {{asbox}} and so is consistent with something like 26,000 other stub templates, and it should not become different. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thehotwheelsguy99: Another comment: the icon of a tree-stump looks like something which has been bigger in the past and has been cut down, so wouldn't be appropriate for a stub tag in any case. Thanks for your efforts, but as Redrose64 says, it's not appropriate to suggest replacing the {{stub}} tag in the way you suggest. PamD 09:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I'm sorry. ᵗʰᵉʰºᵗʷʰᵉᵉˡˢᵍᵘʸ₉₉ (ᵗᵃˡᵏ!) 12:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thehotwheelsguy99: No need to apologise! This is how Wikipedia works - someone makes a suggestion; we kick it around; and sometimes it sticks and sometimes it doesn't. Your proposal includes several changes; Perhaps you could try suggesting some of them individually, on the talk page of {{Asbox}}? Thanks for making the effort, and keep up the good work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewig: I'm not really sure I know what you mean... ᵗʰᵉʰºᵗʷʰᵉᵉˡˢᵍᵘʸ₉₉ (ᵗᵃˡᵏ!) 17:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Asbox}}, or Template:Asbox, is the template around which all stub templates are constructed. Like many other Wikipedia pages, it has a talk page, accessible through its "Talk" tab, this takes you to Template talk:Asbox. That is where proposed changes to that template should be discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add Stub Icon?[edit]

I think that the official "stub icon" as used in assessment should be included as a prefix to the generic stub template. It is unobtrusive, not overly eye-catching, but is recognizable to editors looking to see if the article is a stub or not. It is generic enough, and draws attention to the incompleteness of the article without being too dramatic about it. It also helps to break up the generic stub tag from the article so it doesn't get lost in a jumble. Here is a mockup as to what it would look like:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

I'm proposing this because after a look through the Archives the main pushback against adding an icon was it drawing too much attention to the fact that the article is a stub, which I believe this icon does not do, and I think that all stub footers should have some image relating to their topic to make them slightly more visually appealing to the reader.

Thanks for any feedback, Fritzmann2002 21:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: There's hardly any point to making it more visible. As I noted in the thread immediately above, the {{stub}} template should be rarely used - those few articles that may currently bear a {{stub}} will soon have it replaced by a more specific stub template because of stub sorting. So the ideal number of articles where this icon might be recognizable to editors looking to see if the article is a stub or not, or where it might draw attention to the incompleteness of the article, is zero. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I suggest adding an explanatory icon to the templtae. It also makes the template visually more distinct from the rest of the article. Many subcategories of template:stub already have an icon, as far as I can recall. --Handroid7 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Handroid7: Please see four out of the last five sections above, "Not adding stubs to category?" excepted. There are a number of older discussions too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so I am not the first one to notice this. Good to know. But maybe it is time to do something about it. --Handroid7 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no point adding an icon. This template usually disappears within a few hours. PamD 15:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]