Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2024/February

Proposals, February 2024 edit

Coleophora stubs edit

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 do not create.
I'm unsure if this would actually work as a stub template, since it's a strange case - Category:Coleophoridae stubs is one of the biggest stub categories, but 1374/1409 of the articles are Coleophora, with only 35 non-Coleophora in the category. I'm sure if I knew more about moths I could propose more specific stub categories, but as it is I wonder if having a subcategory for Coleophora would at least help a tiny bit. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observations While I've undertaken (and completed!) more than a couple of category projects of similar scope as this would be, I'm not sure how useful it would really be--UNLESS! ...

If we set up the new stub subcategory, the only way I know then to populate it is to go to each of the more than 1300 articles and edit each one. It would be the same copy/paste-over edit for each, but it's still one at a time. And we would have a parent category of 35 or so, and a subcategory of almost 1400. Furthermore, that subcategory would be alphabetized all under one letter heading. It would show the automatic ToC template (to two letters, since the category is so big), and it would all be under "C-O".

... UNLESS there is a way to set up in a stub something akin to the sortkeys we use in regular categories. This is extremely common in larger categories for single genera; we add a Sortkey to alphabetize each article under the SPECIFIC name (the second part of the two-part name of each species). Redoing genus category pages to accomplish that has been the majority of my work over my years as a Wikignome. In fact, that is the way the non-stub Category:Coleophora is organized. But I don't know if it's possible with a stub page; I'm sure I've NEVER seen a stub page done that way.

The only other possibility I see for avoiding one very large single-letter category is if it turns out that species of this genus are more or less evenly distributed among several subgenera; I don't see any indication that that is the case here. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone better versed than I in this science, please comment - Her Pegship (?) 22:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Tetrapodomorph stubs edit

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 created.
I would like to make a stub category for early tetrapodomorphs (animals closer to modern limbed vertebrates than to other modern animals). Tetrapodomorpha contains many taxa that don't fit neatly into the traditional "fish"/"amphibian" dichotomy. This template lists most of the articles about the group, most of which are stubs. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cynodont stubs edit

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 created.
Category:Prehistoric therapsid stubs is pretty big at over 200 pages, so I'd like to make a subcategory for the cynodonts, which make up a significant portion of the current therapsid stubs. Also, we already have Category:Anomodont stubs for another therapsid group. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sawfly stubs edit

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 created.
The Template:Sawfly-stub upmerges to Category:Hymenoptera stubs. I propose to create the page for Sawfly stubs. There are about 150 articles marked as Sawfly stubs. Hymenoptera is an order of insects, specifically the ants, bees and wasps, and their relatives (like sawflies). The Hymenoptera stubs page itself, currently with 257 articles, has a banner saying that articles should be put into subcategories whenever possible, and the the category should contain mostly subcategories. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, I propose it as an S1 Speedy Creation. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 00:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objection, and it being a clear and straightforward case -- done! Uporządnicki (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Indian passenger trains stubs edit

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.
To categorise passenger train stub articles into a separate sub cat in Category:India rail transport stubs.

Existing sub cat Category:Indian express train stubs can be placed under this along with other non express train service articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by nkb_21 (talk • contribs)

How many articles would qualify for such a sub-cat? Her Pegship (?) 23:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

about 78 articles qualify and the Category:Indian express train stubs upmerges to it. Nkb 21 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be expedited under S1 or S2.It seems this may fit both conditions.- Nkb 21 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the count! Have at it. (Also, the term "upmerged" applies to stub templates but not stub categories.) Her Pegship (?) 22:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nitidulidae stub upmerging--propose own category edit

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 created.
Template:Nitidulidae-stub currently upmerges stubs to Category:Cucujoidea stubs. There are roughly 140 stub articles for Nitidulidae. Under S1, I propose a Speedy Creation of category page for Nitidulidae stubs. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Her Pegship (?) 01:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There being no objection, and it being a routine operation: DONE! Uporządnicki (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: National Trust stubs edit

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 no consensus.
I'm proposing Category:National Trust stubs to enable editors to navigate directly to articles relating to the National Trust that could benefit from improvement, as part of a paid editing pilot for the organisation. There's 94 results using Petscan (ID). You can read more about the pilot here.

Note:This is my first stub category nomination, so please bear with me as I work out what to do if the nomination is successful. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the stub house! I have several questions about this proposed stub type:

Does "National Trust" here mean the National Trust that involves England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (but not Scotland, which has its own)?
If this stub type is to be applied to properties and objects, the template and category should reflect that (i.e. "NationalTrust-England-stub, National Trust properties in England stubs").
Would this project benefit more from a stub type as proposed, or from a separate non-stub category such as those used by WikiProjects?

Not making any judgments, just curious. Her Pegship (?) 20:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the questions @Pegship this definitely helps me think what would be useful.

1) Yes, it's the England, Wales, Northern Ireland one

2) I'm very happy to take more experienced advice on this - I suggested "National Trust stubs" as a catch-all, but am happy to be guided by editors with more experience in this area

3) Currently there isn't a WikiProject National Trust. My thinking with the general stub type as proposed was that it would be a one-stop-shop that we could point new editors to as place where all the NT content that might benefit from expansion could be held. Again, happy to take advice on this, I am new to the work in this project

Thanks again Lajmmoore (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the items on the PetScan list are mainly locations or structures or art. Maybe a more general {{NationalTrust-property-stub}}, without the geography involved? Also, I assume that this template would be applied in addition to existing stub templates rather than replacing them; the articles already have templates like {{castle-stub}}, {{painting-stub}}, etc., which they should still keep. Her Pegship (?) 21:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Pegship you've got the words to express what I was thinking, but didn't quite know how to say. Thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.