Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2016/February: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:35, 25 February 2016

Latest revision as of 20:11, 18 November 2020

(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{archive}}

==Proposals, February 2016==

===RiverAccipitriformes stubs===

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

{{sfp top|created}}

=== NEW PROPOSALS ===

Within the [[birds of prey]], the split of biological order [[Accipitriformes]] from Falconiformes is now well-accepted. This makes the {{tl|Falconiformes-stub}} look anachronistic when placed on an article for a bird that belongs to the other group.

<!--Important: If you wish to propose the creation of a stub ARTICLE you've come to the wrong place. If you don't have a username yourself, please go to [[WP:AFC]] for proposing a new article. If you already have a username, you can create the article yourself. If you don't know how, add *{{tl|Helpme}} to your user talk page to request help from other editors. This page only deals with stub TEMPLATES and CATEGORIES; we cannot help you with creating articles. -->

<!--PLEASE READ [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#Proposing_new_stub_types_-_procedure]] BEFORE PROPOSING A STUB TYPE. THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES THAT QUALIFY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE RESULT OF YOUR PROPOSAL.-->

<!--Please add any new proposals for new stub templates / categories immediately after this line using header level 3-->

Of the 145 articles currently tagged, most are Accipitriformes and only about <strike>23</strike> 28 are true Falconiformes. What would be a good way to handle this? Can we create a "diurnal raptors" parent category and redirect or upmerge? I'm thinking that a temporary redirect would be good until the Accipitriformes can be re-tagged with a new template.

===River stubs===

Most of the other bird stubs are grouped by Order, so I'd prefer to see a separate Falconiformes stub category, even if it has less than 30 pages. But if that's not allowable, we should at least have separate templates for Accipitriformes and Falconiformes to improve the presentation of the articles on which they appear.

Suggestions welcomed,

[[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 20:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

:I would like other opinions from bird experts about this. Assining it's correct, though, I think the best route to take is to take to CfD with a "Reanme and purge" proposal; explicitly state that the stubs being removed should be tagged with {{tl|bird-stub}}. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 19:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

::Thanks, [[User:Od Mishehu]]. Would I be understanding you correctly to say that the creation of Accipitriformes-stub template and category is uncontroversial, but upmerging Falconiformes-stub category into bird-stub would need to go through CfD?

::As for acceptance by bird experts, the article [[Accipitriformes]] details (with references) the adoption of this taxon by major ornithological associations, and the genetic research that led to this. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] and I have been updating taxoboxes to read "Order: Accipitriformes", and Wikispecies has used it for a long time. So I'm confident the taxon is sound. I've also posted a message at [[Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Birds#Accipitriformes stub template]] inviting members to comment.

::[[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 20:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Creating ''any'' stub category for a valid full-level taxon (order, family) is uncontroversial, provided that there are at least 60 stubs to go there; upmerging any category, however, needs to go through CfD. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and created [[:Category:Accipitriformes stubs]] and moved the relevant articles. Decided not to do a super-category for diurnal-raptors-stubs or birds-of-prey-stubs because it wouldn't fit in with the current schema. [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 13:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

===River stubs===

{{sfp top}}

There are [[:Category:Stub-Class_River_articles|over 23,000 stubs]] in [[WP:WikiProject Rivers|WikiProject Rivers]] and [http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan3/catscan2.php?categories=Stub-Class+River+articles%0D%0AStub-Class+Brazil+articles&ns%5B1%5D=1&doit=1 2095] in Brazil alone. Has there been some decision made about not creating stub templates and categories like {{tl|Brazil-river-stub}} and [[:Category:Brazil river stubs]]? The only similar categories that I'm finding are for [[:Category:Queensland river stubs|Queensland]] and [[:Category:China river stubs|China]]. I'd be happy to build out the South American countries if there is some consensus to do this. [[User:Giso6150|giso6150]] ([[User talk:Giso6150|talk]]) 14:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:'''Support'''; you may also want to do Australia, as the country which Queensland belongs to - even if there are 5 rivers, it woulld be enough for a normal stub category. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 16:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:I strongly suspect that I will end up nominating the China category for upmerging, as undersized; hpwever, I'm not ready to commit myuself to such a nomination until the tree is more or less populated. 15:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

{{sfp bottom}}

[[Category:WikiProject Stub sorting archives: Proposals 2016|Proposals 2016 02]]