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 as revised.

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 upmerged template? Also, any estimate on how many Gobiiformes stubs there are? - Furicorn ( talk) 17:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There are over 2000 species of Gobiiformes and any stubs are one of ray-finned fish, Perciformes and Gobiidae. I have put Automated taxoboxes on a couple of hundred Gobiiformes articles in the last week or two. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Support creation of Category:Gobiiformes stubs and Template:Gobiiformes-stubs as direct subcat of Category:Ray-finned fish stubs. There are 629 articles in both Category:Gobiiformes and Category:Ray-finned fish stubs. - Furicorn ( talk) 17:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor correction: I think the template should be {{ gobiiformes-stub}}...? Her Pegship ( speak) 21:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Bump! I have written the stub. It's in my sandbox. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Her Pegship ( speak) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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.
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. AddWitty NameHere 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)

@ Furicorn: I guess you're right. I just don't want to create templates that won't actually be used, but even then, I guess there's not actually any harm done. We can start creating them whenever, I suppose. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've created and started tagging the Ensiferan family templates. Note that Anostostomatidae is part of Ensifera, and not Caelifera as listed above. That's the only error I've found so far. :) - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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.
Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs has over 1100 stubs currently grouped in several dozen upmerged county-level templates. Proposing speedy creation of Regional NHRP subcategories matching the existing regional groupings of Missouri Geography stubs. The existing subcats are:

1. Central Missouri geography stubs
2. St. Louis Area, Missouri geography stubs
3. Kansas City, Missouri region geography stubs
4. Northeast Missouri geography stubs
5. Northwest Missouri geography stubs
6. Ozark region, Missouri geography stubs
7. Southeast Missouri geography stubs
8. Southwest Missouri geography stubs

And the new proposed subcats would be as follows (composed of the identical counties as in the geography groupings):

1. Central Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs
2. St. Louis Area, Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs
3. Kansas City, Missouri region Registered Historic Place stubs
4. Northeast Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs
5. Northwest Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs
6. Ozark region, Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs
7. Southeast Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs
8. Southwest Missouri Registered Historic Place stubs

- Furicorn ( talk) 10:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Her Pegship ( speak) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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.
Category:Orthoptera stubs has 1298 articles, currently. The insect order Orthoptera is divided into two suborders: Ensifera and Caelifera. I note the following search results, showing that at least 429 of the Orthoptera stubs seem to belong in Ensifera: [4], and at least 118 of them seem to belong in Caelifera: [5]. Those searches only catch articles where the applicable suborder is actually mentioned, so a great many are missed, which can be identified on closer inspection. (I can provide more evidence if needed.) I propose stub categories: Category:Ensifera stubs and Category:Caelifera stubs, which should suffice to almost completely depopulate the parent category, except for stubs dealing with Orthopterans in general. Subsequent further subdivision is likely to be desired, but I figure we start here. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 09:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Support, I did some research with PetScan, got the following results

• Category:Orthoptera stubs and Category:Ensifera - 100 results from PetScan PSID 5142490
• Category:Orthoptera stubs and Category:Caelifera - 675 results from PetScan PSID 5142545

Interesting that PetScan counts seem to be the inverse of what the search results suggest. - Furicorn ( talk) 10:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• >5 days, so created. I'd appreciate if someone could double-check my work, as it's been years since I've done this sort of thing. If I made any mistakes, I'd be happy enough to find out and learn to do better. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 17:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ GTBacchus: You forgot to add the WikiProject banners (Stub sorting & Insects in this case) to the talkpages, but other than that I didn't see any issues. (Well, beyond the fact that most relevant stubs haven't been sorted into the newly established categories yet so they're still underpopulated for now, but that's to be expected as you only just created them) AddWitty NameHere 18:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

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 Flanders geography stub parent cat; send Wallonia stub cat to cfr.

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)

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.
Same staggered approach. Same precedent for genus-level categories. As always, article-numbers given for existing categories do not include numbers in their extant subcategories; unless explicitly stated otherwise, estimated article numbers given for proposed categories do not include numbers for articles in simultaneously-proposed subcategories. Unless otherwise stated, most if not all articles for the proposed subcategories can be found in the lowest-level extant stub category I'm proposing it as subcategory of.

In part who-even-knows-anymore-plus-one of this saga, I'd like to propose the following:
For existing category Category:Drepanidae stubs (just shy of 800 stubs, no subcategories), the following subcategories and templates:

• Category:Drepaninae stubs/{{ Drepaninae-stub}}: ~470-489 stubs. (I've just finished diffusing the non-stub counterpart categories and as usual, it's just about all stubs. Wouldn't be surprised to find it's all stubs, tbh, just not able/willing to guarantee it)
• Category:Thyatirinae stubs/{{ Thyatirinae-stub}}: ~290-300 stubs. (Same as above)

AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 03:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Five days past, creating. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Drepaninae done. Thyatirinae in progress. About 30% done, taking a bit of a break before wrapping up. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 00:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And done, if a little later than expected. Adding to stub types list now. AddWitty NameHere 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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 as revised.

Same staggered approach. Same precedent for genus-level categories. As always, article-numbers given for existing categories do not include numbers in their extant subcategories; unless explicitly stated otherwise, estimated article numbers given for proposed categories do not include numbers for articles in simultaneously-proposed subcategories. Unless otherwise stated, most if not all articles for the proposed subcategories can be found in the lowest-level extant stub category I'm proposing it as subcategory of.

In part who-even-knows-anymore of this saga, I'd like to propose the following:

For existing subcategory Category:Blastobasidae stubs (494 stubs, no extant subcategories), the following subcategories and templates:
Due to lack of taxonomic certainty, no subfamily-level stubcategories are proposed.

• Category:Blastobasis stubs/{{ Blastobasis-stub}}: Species in genus Blastobasis. ~160-170 stubs. (Based upon Category:Blastobasis holding 175 articles, combined with an at-a-glance estimate of articles in Category:Blastobasidae stubs showing by and far most Blastobasis articles are stubs. Par for the course with moths, sadly.)
• Category:Holcocera stubs/{{ Holcocera-stub}}: Genus Holcocera and all species stubs. 67 stubs.
• Category:Hypatopa stubs/{{ Hypatopa-stub}}: Genus Hypatopa and species stubs. 84 stubs.

For existing subcategory Category:Cosmopterigidae stubs (1540 stubs, 1 extant subcategory), the following:

• Category:Antequerinae stubs/{{ Antequerinae-stub}}. 67 articles. ( Antequerinae and all genus- and species-level stubs of genera Alloclita, Antequera,Chalcocolona, Cnemidolophus,Cosmiosophista, Euclemensia, Gibeauxiella, Lamachaera, Meleonoma, (see below) Pancalia and Phosphaticola.)
  

:* Category:Limnaecia stubs/{{ Limnaecia-stub}}. Genus Limnaecia and species stubs. 130 stubs. EDIT:Striking this, see below

• Category:Macrobathra stubs/{{ Macrobathra-stub}}. Genus Macrobathra and species stubs. 123 stubs.

AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Trusting (as usual) that you know what you're about taxonomy-wise, support. Pegship ( talk) 16:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• One support, no opposition, five days and about two hours since proposing...time to create. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 02:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blastobasidae subcategories done. Onto Cosmopterigidae it is. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: While diffusing I've made some changes to the proposed above: I see I accidentally gave Macrobathra an indent it shouldn't have had: meant to propose it separately//as subcategory of Cosmopterigidae, not of Antequerinae.

Striking Meleonoma as genus included in Antequerinae. Too much taxonomic contradiction both within and outside en.wiki. As a result, the category would be slightly undersized (50 stubs or thereabout) if separating Limnaecia into a subcategory, so gonna sort those straight into Antequerinae stubs instead. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 04:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

& Done (but see above), now off to update the stub types list and then it's very much time for a break--my wrists are hurting. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 05:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)