Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Proposals, June 2018

The never-ending moth story

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.
Only one open proposal left by me, which means it's time to add another per my staggered approach described in said open proposal. Significant precedent for the creation of genus-level categories exists.

This time, I'd like to propose the following:
Article-numbers given for existing categories do not include numbers in their extant subcategories. Unless otherwise stated, all articles for the proposed subcategories can be found in the lowest-level extant category I'm proposing it as subcategory of.

For existing category Category:Gelechioidea stubs (590 stubs, 11 extant subcategories), the following subcategory and template:

For existing subcategory Category:Lecithoceridae stubs (1305 stubs, no extant subcategories), the following subcategories and templates:
  • Category:Lecithocerinae stubs/{{Lecithocerinae-stub}}. To be frank, I can't be bothered to count the exact number of stubs across several dozen genera this would involve, but I can safely say it would be a couple hundred, and that's NOT including the articles that would fall into

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Five days have passed, no opposition: creating. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Stathmopodidae and Lecithocerinae  Done (other than listing on stub types page which I'll do when I've wrapped the entire proposal up), Lecithocera  In progress—a bit less than 2/3rds done. Will finish up Lecithocera, Torodorinae & Torodora in a few hours, need some sleep first. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
"And moths to go before you sleep..." ? :P Pegship (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Post-closing comment I know, not supposed to do that but I don't think it will harm any in this case @Pegship: Aye, and moths to go before I sleep (and after I sleep, and the past few weeks—probably due to the sheer volume of edits I've made—even moths in my sleep from time to time. :P) Anyway, starting back up, should have the rest of it wrapped up before midnight UTC. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:31, 3 July 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.

Ever more moths

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 recognize I still have an open proposal below—one that still has a bit over a day of waiting time to go—but I'm taking a "staggered" approach, if you will, to proposals. This'll allow me to on one hand not overwhelm the board with a single HUGE proposal, nor overwhelm it with large amounts of open requests (there'd be no more than two or at most three open sections by me at the same time), while still saving me time, allowing for a steady progress in handling Lepidoptera stubs.

The following proposal includes a genus-level stub category. As a similar proposal by another editor was subject of some questions recently, I figured I'd clarify in advance that there is significant precedent within the Lepidoptera stub categorization tree for splitting up along taxonomical lines, all the way down to genera if necessary. (Considering approximately one in every ~57 articles on the project is a moth or butterfly stub, it very often is).

As such, I would like to propose:
Article-numbers given for existing categories do not include numbers in their extant subcategories. Unless otherwise stated, all articles for the proposed subcategories can be found in the lowest-level extant category I'm proposing it as subcategory of.

For Category:Yponomeutoidea stubs (501 stubs, 2 extant subcategories), the following subcategories and templates:

  • Category:Lyonetiidae stubs/{{Lyonetiidae-stub}}. 69 stubs excluding Leucoptera separately proposed below (Lyonetiidae; Acanthocnemes; a Cataristis species stub; Chrysolytis and a species stub; Copobathra and a species stub; Crobylophora and four species stubs; Cycloponympha and three species stubs; Exegetia; Leucoedemia and a species stub; Lyonetia and twenty-two species stubs; Micropostega and a species stub; Microthauma and a species stub; Petasobathra; Phyllobrostis and twelve species stubs; Platacmaea and a species stub; Prolyoneta; Prytaneutis; Stegommata and three species stubs; Taeniodictys)
  • Category:Ypsolophidae stubs/{{Ypsolophidae-stub}}. 128 stubs. (Ypsolophidae; genus Ochsenheimeria and ten species stubs; genus Phrealcia and three species stubs; 110 Ypsolopha species stubs but not the genus article itself (it's not a stub); two Rhabdocosma species stubs)

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Five days passed without comment. Will be creating & sorting in the next few hours. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Other than adding the templates and categories to the list, which I'll do in a few minutes after a short break from rapid-fire stub sorting/diffusing, it's all  Done. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:58, 1 July 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.

Moths yet again: Proposal for a (upmerged?) template & a template+category (EDIT: &2 more temp+cats)

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.
I would like to propose the following templates, for-now upmerged to Category:Moth stubs:

  • {{Thyrididae-stub}}. Moth family consisting of four subfamilies, a bit over 50 genera and somewhere between several hundred and a thousand species. However, by and far most articles do not exist yet. I would estimate that at the moment somewhere between 55 and 65 applicable stubs exist. (If I could get the permission to create a category without having to return here if and only if after stub-sorting I find that sixty or more applicable stubs exist, that'd be awesome)

While I'm at it, I would also like to propose the following template and category:

Since no one has responded yet, may as well add the following in the same section:

Proposing creation of the following templates+subcategories to Category:Zygaenoidea stubs:

First part of the proposal (Thyrididae & Immidae) have been here for over five days without comment. Per procedure, going to start creating and sorting those. By the time I'm done, the last 2h01m on the Dalceridae&Limacodidae should've run out too, so I'll probably end up creating those immediately after. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thyrididae-stubs created. Numbers sufficient for a category (63), so created the accompanying category as well as mentioned above. Category is somewhat slow to update, though. So far, only two of the transcluding articles have appeared in the category. Bit of luck the rest will show up soon though. Now onto Immidae... AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Immidae done. Thyrididae cat finally updated. Full five days have passed on the two Zygaenoidea subcats I proposed, so continuing on those. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
& Done Added all four to stub types page, as well. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:22, 27 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.

Speedy creation (S1) of category for upmerged template Scythrididae-stub transcluded on 450+ pages

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.
{{Scythrididae-stub}} is still upmerged but is, per the template transclusion count tool transcluded on 468 pages and thus well overdue a category creation. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy away! Pegship (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Creation of Category:Scythrididae stubs and retargeting the template are  Done AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:31, 20 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.

Iranian radio station 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 upmerged template.

I would like to propose {{Iran-radio-station-stub}}, to be upmerged into the existing categories Asian radio station stubs and Iranian media stubs The first article to be tagged with {{Iran-radio-station-stub}} would be Radio Farhang Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Just one? Can you find any more? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: The licenced radio stations listed at List of radio stations in Iran, http://www.logect.com/live/radio/iran/ and https://www.internet-radio.com/search/?radio=iran (not counting the Interenet-only stations) could probably all be the subject of stub articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Eastmain: Tentative Support upmerged template until those articles are created. Pegship (talk) 14:47, 15 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.

American football wide receiver, 1990s birth 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.
There are already existing stubs for each birth decade from 1890s until 1980s, and so adding the most recent decade makes sense. Moreover, there are about fifty articles to which this stub could be currently applied. Deville (Talk) 15:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No objections? Deville (Talk) 14:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Have at it. Pegship (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, set it up like Category:American football wide receiver, 1980s birth stubs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/2018/June&oldid=989405725"