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

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/Archive/2018. 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, May 2018

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Perfumers

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.

{{Perfumer-bio-stub}}Aug 2008(s1 61 transclusions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this template is needed. There are only 61 total perfumers with articles in Category:Perfumers, and based on random sampling, it looks like less than half of these are stubs. We generally do not create stub templates with so little potential for growth. Perfumers are currently being sorted using {{fashion-bio-stub}} which is not oversized. --Qetuth (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the "to create" page, I see that this template was added to the "arts" list by RevengeOfTheRobots, along with a false date (this was never discussed as far as I can find). I'm guessing that the user realized that this Proposals page was the correct place to request the template and then moved it here. (Though I'm a bit suspicious of the "Aug 2008" date cited. Hmm.) Anyway, we definitely don't need a stub type for this subject, per Qetuth's comment about viability. Do not create. Pegship (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was like holy cow what did I just do then I tried to delete as soon as possible. But I also think people in the arts of fragrance don't fit perfectly in the fashion world. What about aromas and scents that exist outside of perfume and cologne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 June 2018 (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.

Australian people 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 all except Australia-handball-stub for now.

Some speedy Australian templates and categories:

{{Australia-gov-bio-stub}} (s2) 144 results just for a depth 0 petscan on Au people stubs and Au public servants, and I suspect there are many more than this.
Category:Australian government biography stubs - see above, plus there's also 30 translusions of australia-diplomat-stub to be upmerged here
Category:Australian rugby league biography, 1960s birth stubs‎, (s1 with 62 transclusions)
Category:Australian bowls biography stubs (s1 with ~100 transclusions)
Category:Australian golf biography stubs (s1 with ~70 transclusions)

Also, I was going to propose an upmerged {{Australia-handball-bio-stub}} for the intersection of {{oceania-handball-bio-stub}} and {{Australia-sport-bio-stub}}, but I have just realised that this applies to every single transclusion of the oceania template - I'm not sure what the best solution here is. --Qetuth (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (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.

Propose stub subcategory "Pyrausta (moth)" within stub category Pyraustinae

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's a stub category for a subfamily of moths--Pyraustinae--with over 1300 articles listed. I recently went through the NON-stub category for the same subfamily, and separated out the genus Pyrausta as a subcategory. That new subcategory contains 295 articles, and I estimate that a subcategory for Pyrausta stubs will have about as many. With approval, I will undertake it. I've completed much larger projects here. And I recently did a new stub category and set up a stub template. So this one should go a little faster because I won't be figuring out from scratch what a stub template is and how to create one. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Anybody looking at these, lately? Perhaps if I add a remark, it'll come back to the top of people's attention. I'd like to undertake this project, but in two weeks, I haven't gotten a yea or a nay. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in view of the declined gastropod request (below), is this something that the Lepidoptera people would be OK with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. I actually did, as I said, already create a non-stub subcategory for Pyrausta. And I've been at these things for many years, and have only run into that concern with the gastropods. But I'll run something up the flagpole at the Lepidoptera project page and see who salutes. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, like I also said on the WikiProject page, it shouldn't be an issue. We've got several other genus-level stub cats scattered through our stub tree, some of which have been requested by me in the past and none of which have led to any complaints to the best of my knowledge.

(To be fair, I have just returned from a year-long absence. While it's possible things have changed, all the genus-level stubcats I know of in Lepidoptera still stand, nothing was said on my usertalk during my absence and no complaints were raised on the WikiProject talkpage. Indeed, a far more unusual division was proposed (dividing a stub-cat by alphabetic groupings of genera names) and the only comment it got on our WikiProject was an agreement. (It does not, however, seem to have been implemented). This makes me at mildest strongly suspect the WikiProject's stance is still the same: genus-level stub-sorting is fine.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2018 (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.

Stub template/category page for Odostomia, under Pyramidellidae

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.
There's a large stub category for Pyramidellidae, a family of gastropods. It includes a very large genus, Odostomia. More than 400 entries on the stub page belong to this genus. I propose to create a stub template for Odostomia, then set up and populate a stub category page for it. Yes, it could take me several weeks; I have done many projects of comparable size. I notice that not long ago, someone set up a non-stub subcategory for Odostomia under the non-stub category for Pyramidellidae. Someone then moved 11 of the 400+ articles, and that someone has now left Wikipedia. So I want to go ahead and populate the non-stub category. If I do both projects simultaneously, it should save me time in the long run. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Support per nom. There are indeed hundreds of articles on Odostomia included in in the permcat for Pyramidellidae, even though few of them have been added to the Odostomia permcat. Knowing nothing about biology or taxonomy, however, I don't know what the appropriate format would be for the template and category names. I observe that Odostomia are part of the subfamily Odostomiinae and wonder whether the template & cat should be named after the subfamily. More sciencey minds than mine, please comment. Pegship (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Support indeed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to run it by the team (or whatever they call it) for the subject. I'm not an expert on gastropods; I just run around doing major surgery on categories wherever I find them. I've noticed that with categories (not the stubs) for families of gastropods, they want all the species to be listed in that family category--even when there's a subcategory for a genus in that family. That's not the usual Wikipedia procedure, but I don't want to second guess a consensus in one special group. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems that it is not a good idea. When I ran it up the flagpole at the gastropods project page, they explained that there's reason not to break up large family categories into genera; apparently, gastropod taxonomy is in a state of flux. So I'll leave it alone. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2018 (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.