Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2016/April

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Proposals, April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

Speedy proposal (S1): Cat for upmerged {{Epermenioidea-stub}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Figured that I might as well do some more Lepidoptera stub-sorting as I wait out the customary five days on my open non-speedy proposal below. Wouldn't have come here for yet another proposal while that's open, except this one's a pretty obvious case: {{Epermenioidea-stub}}, currently upmerged to Category:Moth stubs, now is transcluded on over 60 pages (and still rising. Suspect it'll end up with ~125-150 articles with {{Epermenioidea-stub}} transcluded on it.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Done sorting all with the upmerged template. 165 transclusions. Can I get the okay to make the category? :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy away! Her Pegship (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cats for upmerged Category:Philippines geography stubs templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create cats for BicolR & WVisayas.
Category:Philippines geography stubs contains over 1,000 articles and there are upmerged regional templates. I've been going through them and there are now 60+ articles with {{BicolR-geo-stub}}, {{MetroManila-geo-stub}}, {{ZamboangaP-geo-stub}}, and {{WVisayas-geo-stub}}. I plan to tackle the rest of the templates as well; for now, may I propose categories for these three?

Speedy? Her Pegship (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support speedy creation on {{BicolR-geo-stub}} and {{WVisayas-geo-stub}}, which indeed show a transclusion-count above 60 on the Template transclusion count tool. Textbook S1 for them.

{{ZamboangaP-geo-stub}} is at 47 transclusions both by my own count and by the tool. Are there at least 13 more articles that need it?

{{MetroManila-geo-stub}} is at 53 transclusions (again, both per tool and per manual count). Are there 7 more articles that need it? (Suspect so, mind, but still) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I coulda sworn I sorted more than 60 articles for Zamboanga. I need lunch.s XD I'll keep sorting and propose the Zamboanga and Manila cats later, and speedy the other two. Thanks for the catch. Her Pegship (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and it happens. XD I'll see if I can help with some of the stub-sorting if I can find some spare time. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Adelidae stubs/Template:Adelidae-stub; subcat Category:Ceromitia stubs/Template:Ceromitia-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Adelidae-category should be a subcat of existing Category:Incurvarioidea stubs, as that's the superfamily Adelidae belongs to.
Ceromitia-category should be a subcat of the proposed Adelidae-category, as it's a genus in that family. I'm skipping the subfamily-step here due to lack of taxonomic clarity; while it is clear Ceromitia belongs in the Adelidae family, the exact taxonomy within the Adelidae family as a whole (not purely pertaining to Ceromitia) is less clear.

Well in excess of 60 applicable articles:
In Incurvarioidea stubs:

Adela (moth) + 29 stub-level species at scientific name & Green longhorn (common name of Adela reaumurella, which redirs there) 31 articles
Cauchas + 16 stub-level species at scientific name, none found at common names 17 articles
Ceromitia & 90 stub-level species at scientific name, not checked for common names yet 91 articles—large enough for its own category&template, hence above proposal
Nematopogon & 12 stub-level species at scientific name, none found at common names 13 articles
Nemophora & 51 stub-level species at scientific name, not checked for common names 51 articles
Trichofrons pantherella 1 article

Elsewhere:

Cauchas fibulella & Cauchas rufimitrella, both stubs per talkpage & by comparison to other stub-tagged articles in genus, but wholly lacks a stub-template of any kind. 2 articles

Total: 206 articles if Adelidae is accepted but not Ceromitia; 115 Adelidae articles and 91 Ceromitia articles if both are accepted. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Support both assuming numbers here are correct (which I didn't check). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Should be, or within a reasonable distance—can't guarantee that I'm not slightly off in either direction due to typos, miscounting or what-have-ye. Can guarantee numbers are within a ~1-2% margin of what I noted above, so maybe 1-3 off at most. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic stubs and Template:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was both deleted per discussions at CfD and TfD.

I came across these which were created by User:Harut111. There has been a previous SFD discussion in 2006 for Nagorno-Karabakh. I have no dog in this fight, other than perhaps prefering the short form rather than the specific republic, I guess the question would be is whether the region has become better recognised as an independent country in the last ten years. Conversely, with recent fighting, it's become even more controversial and I am struggling to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Le Deluge (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that, until the Republic is recognized by the U.N., we should err on the side of caution and either delete both template and category, or delete the category and upmerge the template to Category:Azerbaijan stubs. If the latter, the template should be restructured as {{NagornoKarabakhRepublic-stub}}. Her Pegship (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note over at WikiProject Armenia, after following links from the user and from the template. Her Pegship (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:British Empire stubs and Template:British-Empire-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Request speedy creation. While I have not done a stub count, this is a large and well-established subject which should have, certainly, its own stub listing. Glacier2009 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to its scope? I see that Category:British Empire has many, many sub-cats, most of which I believe have their own stub types. Not sure a separate, generalized type is needed. Her Pegship (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem is, many, it not most, of the subcategories do not have their own stub types. I have checked this. Moreover, because Category:British Empire is a parent category, some of its subcategories will never be large enough to justify their own stub cats, let alone the stub articles in the parent category itself. Glacier2009 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If there's a way to provide readers/stubbers with a ballpark time period, say, 1500-1945 (or however you want to define it), I cautiously support a {{British-Empire-stub}} OR {{BritishEmpire-stub}} (can someone vet the template for me?) - upmerged until it's used on 60+ articles.

Thanks, I am going to create this template, with said description. Glacier2009 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Eriocottidae-stub and Category:Eriocottidae stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
Well over 60 applicable articles. Category should be a subcategory of the existing Category: Tineoidea stubs‎, because that's the superfamily Eriocottidae belongs to.

Articles it's relevant to:
Currently tagged with generic Moth-stub template & in Category:Moth stubs:

Cathalistis and its 3 stub-level species (4 articles)
Compsoctena and 55 stub-level species (56 articles)
Crepidochares & 5 stub-level species (6 articles)
Dacryphanes cyanastra (1 article)
Deuterotinea & 10 stub-level species (11 articles)
Eriocottis & 7 stub-level species (8 articles)
Eucryptogona & Eucryptogona trichobathra (2 articles)
Tetracladessa chalcoxesta (1 article)

Subtotal: 89 articles

Currently tagged with Tineoidea-stub template & thus in Category:Tineoidea stubs:

Eriocottidae & Eriocottis fuscanella (2 articles)

Subtotal: 2 articles.
Total: 91 articles, and that's on the presumption all of them are listed at scientific name and have either been sorted into Tineoidae-stubs (which they should have been in...though I'm not going to sort them there now just to redo it in a few days if the template-and-cat is agreed to) or at least into its parent Moth-stubs. If anything has either been mistagged, remained untagged or is tagged yet further up the stream than moth-stubs, it's not listed here. (Once the template & cat are there, I'll be systematically going through the relevant genera and its species just to make sure, but again, not doing stuff now just to redo it all in a few days time) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Support per body count. Her Pegship (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Done as six days have passed with one support, no objection - created template and category, adding it to the list of stub templates now. Will have to go away-from-keyboard after that for an hour or two, will start tagging the abovementioned articles after that. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC) EDIT: And all articles listed above are now properly sorted. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Pharmacy-stub

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed creation of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was create.
There are at least a few articles in Category:Pharmacology_stubs that should probably be under Pharmacy stub rather than Pharmacology stub, which while related are quite different from each other. For example, Auxiliary label, British Society for the History of Pharmacy, Pharmaconomy , maybe even Clark's rule. I couldn't look through many of them but I am sure there are more. Is it possible to create Pharmacy stub template that upmerges into Pharmacology for now? Thanks. -- TOW 07:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I am going to go ahead and create this. -- TOW 23:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.