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

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2016. 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, February 2016

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Accipitriformes 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 created.

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

Of the 145 articles currently tagged, most are Accipitriformes and only about 23 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.

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, 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 {{bird-stub}}. עוד מישהו Od 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. 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od 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. Pelagic (talk) 13:24, 11 March 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.

River 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 .
There are over 23,000 stubs in WikiProject Rivers and 2095 in Brazil alone. Has there been some decision made about not creating stub templates and categories like {{Brazil-river-stub}} and Category:Brazil river stubs? The only similar categories that I'm finding are for Queensland and China. I'd be happy to build out the South American countries if there is some consensus to do this. 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. עוד מישהו Od 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)

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.