Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2018/July

Proposals, July 2018

Please check how many articles qualify for a stub type before proposing it.

Gobiiformes

The 5th edition of Fishes of the World recognises the order Gobiiformes as separate from the Perciformes, I am updating the Gobiiform articles to reflect this and currently (if I remember) changing any stub tags to Category:Ray-finned fish stubs. In think a Category:Gobiiformes stubs would be useful. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Might could be useful indeed, I edited your post a little, I think you were asking for categories, but maybe you were suggesting a new template?

Orthoptera, phase II

Within Category:Orthoptera stubs, every article but two have been sorted into either Category:Caelifera stubs or Category:Ensifera stubs, which now hold between six and seven hundred articles each. These suborders are divided into superfamilies which are divided into families, but as far as stubs, I think it makes sense to skip straight to the family level. Within the Caelifera, we have the family Acrididae, in which I'm finding about 588 stubs [1]. That one will probably call for further dividing, once it's populated. Meanwhile, among the Ensifera, there are two families showing respectable numbers: the Gryllidae with about 128 stubs [2], and the Rhaphidophoridae with about 108 stubs [3]. I therefore propose:

• Category:Acrididae stubs (subcat to Category:Caelifera stubs)
• Category:Gryllidae stubs (subcat to Category:Ensifera stubs)
• Category:Rhaphidophoridae stubs (subcat to Category:Ensifera stubs)

Unless someone has a reason that there should be stub categories for superfamilies in this particular order, this seems to me to be the way forward. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Superfamily stub categories are useful when said superfamily has a lot of species/genera incerta sedis; when there's taxonomic instability and frequent revisions in regards to what belongs to which family; when the separate families are too small to bother with categories/when the parent category is likely to remain oversized when solely separating the larger families. None of those appear to apply here (though the latter might eventually apply when a larger portion of species has actual articles, though once that is the case, more family-level categories can also be split off so we'll have to revisit once it comes to that); support skipping straight to the family level. AddWittyNameHere 18:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Just realized I hadn't mentioned this work I'm doing over in the insect project, and that I probably should..... so I did. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Does it make sense to create the following family-level stub templates, upmerged to the relevant suborders? Then, those templates can be easily organized into sensible levels of minor classification granularity. Families drawn from Category:Orthoptera stubs. Due to the current poor state of categorization of the articles, it's very hard to do PetScan analysis. I did my best to suggest what suborders each stub template would go into. I'm happy to help with this.

Caelifera

1. {{Acrididae-stub}} (already proposed)
2. {{Anostostomatidae-stub}}
3. {{Charilaidae-stub}}
4. {{Chorotypidae-stub}} 9 stubs
5. {{Cooloolidae-stub}}
6. {{Cylindrachetidae-stub}}
7. {{Dericorythidae-stub}} 5 stubs
8. {{Eumastacidae-stub}} 27 stubs
9. {{Lathiceridae-stub}}
10. {{Lentulidae-stub}}
11. {{Lithidiidae-stub}}
12. {{Ommexechidae-stub}}
13. {{Pamphagidae-stub}}
14. {{Pyrgacrididae-stub}}
15. {{Romaleidae-stub}}
16. {{Tetrigidae-stub}}
17. {{Tridactylidae-stub}}
18. {{Tristiridae-stub}}

Ensifera

1. {{Gryllacrididae-stub}}
2. {{Gryllidae-stub}} (already proposed)
3. {{Gryllotalpidae-stub}}
4. {{Mogoplistidae-stub}}
5. {{Myrmecophilidae-stub}}
6. {{Pamphagodidae-stub}}
7. {{Pneumoridae-stub}}
8. {{Prophalangopsidae-stub}}
9. {{Proscopiidae-stub}}
10. {{Pyrgomorphidae-stub}}
11. {{Rhaphidophoridae-stub}} (already proposed)
12. {{Schizodactylidae-stub}}
13. {{Stenopelmatidae-stub}}
14. {{Tettigoniidae-stub}}
15. {{Thericleidae-stub}}
16. {{Trigonopterygidae-stub}}

-Furicorn (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I would also be willing to help, should we decide to make templates for each family. Sounds fun. An advantage might be that categorization of the order by family, rather than by suborder, is more natural to expect from readers or future editors. If there's a reason this would be a bad idea, I don't know it. Even if some of these templates are mostly unused, those won't hurt anything. As long as nobody gets all excited and creates a cat for every template, even the unused ones, we should be fine, and then if any more family stub cats become necessary down the line, they're already sorted. I like it. Support. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

So, the requisite five days having passed, I created the three categories I had proposed here, created templates for them, and diffused the two sub-order stub cats, at least at a first pass. This makes it easier to examine the situation with other families. One of the first things I notice is that there are a number of articles doubly classified as belonging to family Acrididae or to one of the families Romaleidae or Pamphagidae. Those two families only exist according to certain authors, with others treating them as subfamilies of Acrididae. Not sure if there's a consensus on how to handle those here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@GTBachhus: I think ambiguity in family designation feels like a question for WP:Insects. Maybe they already have a category for contested taxa. -Furicorn (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn: That sounds good, I'll ask them. Meanwhile, do you agree with holding off on these family templates until we get some clarification? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@GTBachhus: It's certainly not a problem to hold off. While I think it makes sense to leave ambiguous articles alone, I'm not sure why we would hold off on creating the families to tag articles that clearly fit in one or another family. With upmerged templates, the article stays in the same category, but now has a more specific template that can be used for analytical purposes in PetScan (so we can determine if there is a set of articles that make a logical subcat). We often do this in Geographical categories. Is there some particular concern you have with the family templates? My only concern is the amount of drudgery it will be :), but like I said, with upmerging we can tag all the articles before we decide on how to arrange the subcategories. -Furicorn (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Flanders stubs

PetScan, PSID=5054403

• Qualifying articles: 9968

• Create Template:Flanders-stub and Category:Flanders stubs. Especially since we already have the Wallonia versions. Flanders and Wallonia are twins, counterparts. I'm surprised that we have one and not the other. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• The Category:Wallonia stubs is populated by geo-stub sub-cats, thusly:

Belgian Luxembourg geography stubs‎ (67 P)

Namur geography stubs‎ (89 P)

Walloon Brabant geography stubs‎

Hainaut geography stubs‎ (155 P)

Liège geography stubs‎ (132 P)

• Likewise, there are several Flanders geography stub categories:

Antwerp geography stubs‎ (96 P)

East Flanders geography stubs‎ (109 P)

Flemish Brabant geography stubs‎ (95 P)

Belgian Limburg geography stubs‎ (44 P)

West Flanders geography stubs‎ (146 P)

• It appears that the only reason to create a parent cat for Flanders geo-stubs is to mirror the Wallonia geo-stubs parent; very few of the articles in Category:Flanders are about anything but geography. Tentative support creation of parent cat Category:Flanders stubs; no support for {{Flanders-stub}}. Would rather create parent cat Category:Flanders geography stubs without a template. Her Pegship (speak) 22:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)