User talk:Stemonitis/Archive27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 16 2010 and July 31 2010.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I've seen the work you've done in several ways, and I'm sure you've done the same for others Philcha (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Blimey – two barnstars in as many weeks. I'm flattered. Thanks a lot. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Minor ranks in (Diptera) taxoboxes[edit]

1st point not discised before.

The guidelines on this subject state not to use Minor ranks in taxoboxes - unless there is a consensuses to include then. With Diptera many workers are including these, so I am following consensus and the guidelines.

Unlike other orders, the real detail in Diptera classification is in the in the minor ranks. In other orders, for example mollusca, linnaeus's simple model works very well, and I would not even stop to consider including them when I edit a non-diptera page. For Diptera with great diversity in the several hundred families, it does not.

When I visit museum collections on Diptera research, these collections are ordered by these minor ranks, I can not find the hoverfly collections, without knowing that they are in the Aschiza part of the collection. My assumption is other diptera workers on wikipedia include these ranks for similar reasions?

Responded at User talk:Simuliid --Stemonitis (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rhithrogena germanica[edit]

RlevseTalk 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tags[edit]

I haven't been making a personal judgement call of any sort — AWB adds them automatically. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Bearcat. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I think there is a mistake on the WoRMS site concerning the reference you added recently. Denis Bellan-Santini has ASFAIK not published recently. I needed to contact her some weeks ago but all her current email addresses (IMIS, Oceanexpert and other sources checked) are stale. I think the correct date for that reference should be 2001 as mentioned in the upper part of the page. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference I added is copied more or less verbatim from the WoRMS site (at the bottom of the page: "Citation: Costello, M.; Bellan-Santini, D. (2010). Leucothoe Leach, 1814. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at on 2010-06-26"). That gives the year as 2010, even though the last update in its "edit history" is from 2004 (but then the record includes species described in 2005 and 2006). It is not the same reference as citing "Bellan-Santini, D.; Costello, M.J. (2001). Amphipoda, in: Costello, M.J. et al. (Ed.) (2001). European register of marine species: a check-list of the marine species in Europe and a bibliography of guides to their identification. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 50: pp. 295-308", which is merely the basis for the WoRMS record, and presumably doesn't contain L. ashleyae, L. brunonis or L. kenselyi, although I don't know how or when those were added. I don't really know WoRMS as well as I think you do (I've seen some of your pictures there), but a citation date of 2001 must be too old for the data it contains. To be honest, I don't really mind what we cite, as long as we cite something. I am just going through and adding references to otherwise unreferenced crustacean articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'll check with the WoRMS editors. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I will revert all you recent my reverts. For many reasons (all of them listed in edit summary), for example that external links should be in Externa links section and so on. --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not recommend it. There is no consensus for removing the new template, and making such edits against consensus merely to make a point may well be interpreted as disruptive editing. I strongly recommend trying to resolve issues such as this through calm, rational discourse. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Stemonitis. --Snek01 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Centuria Insectorum[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hepatus epheliticus[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dynastes tityus[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Conchaspis capensis[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Catopsilia scylla[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Periclimenes dardanicola.[edit]

Speaking of DYK, this article's still short by several hundred bytes, but maybe we could get her up to DYK standards? I see at least one or two interesting facts mentioned in the source for the page... Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded it a little bit more, and it now exceeds the 1500-character mark comfortably (I make it 1747). It's a shame there's only one source to rely on, but I guess that's inevitable with recently described species. It is mentioned on an interesting blog, but blogs are not normally considered reliable sources. I have also expanded Dardanus pedunculatus, so we should be able to make a double hook. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool, and thanks for your help! I'm sorry I did not do much more than the distribution and the etymology, but I had trouble understanding the rest of the stuff that had not already been mentioned. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sphex pensylvanicus[edit]

RlevseTalk 00:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback[edit]

I suggest you do not make edits such as this again. Unless you want rollback revoked from you. • GunMetal Angel 05:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make threats. Your edits removed italics from scientific names; scientific names at the genus level and below should always be italicised. You also added full stops (periods) to the end of captions which were not full sentences, but mere noun clauses; the manual of style recommends that there should be no full stops in these cases (see MOS:CAPTIONS). I am sorry if you saw the rollback as abrupt, but I saw no value in the edits you made, and no justification for them. Had it seemed like a matter of reasonable doubt, I would have left a more explanatory edit summary. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make threats, but just making a statement. I had rollback removed from me for a short time because I did something like that. — All I'm doing is informing you. Plus it's rude to use a revert teqnuique of which not features an edit summary as an inclusion and assumes bad faith, so yeah; maybe I was a little pissed when I left you this message, but its purpose was mainly upon informing. • GunMetal Angel 06:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Periclimenes dardanicola[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dardanus pedunculatus[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dardanus pendunculatus.[edit]

Hi, Stemonitis! Well, it looks like our efforts paid off; P. dardanicola and D. pendunculatus are articles-of-title now. However, I'm a little concerned with the fact that the DYK credit-giving bot (on Rlevse's behalf) gave me credit for creating/substantially expanding both articles, when I was only involved with P. dardanicola. Am I supposed to accept credit for both pages? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. The DYK templates aren't well designed for attributing different articles to different authors. I put your name in as "creator" (thinking of P. dardanicola), without thinking about what would happen when the credits were handed out. In this case, I think it's actually reasonably fair, because I would certainly not have written about Dardanus pedunculatus if you hadn't created Periclimenes dardanicola (but then I did change the wording of my new DYK credits to "created or substantially expanded" when I copied them to my plaudits page). I'm sure no-one will think you're trying to take credit for something you haven't done, so don't worry about it. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, when you put it that way... so you think would be alright for me to add that message to my awards page? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be my opinion, yes. You created the article that gave rise to the hook (even if the hook mentions two articles); you can take credit for that. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay; thanks for all your help! I hope we can do this again sometime soon! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"hemogoblin" -- You have to admit it was clever ....[edit]

Re your revert here: [1] Bug ("bugge") used to mean "ghost or goblin", it seems [2], and hemo, well .... I'm thinking of appealing for some semi-protection status for bedbug, since it looks like it gets vandalized several times a week. Do you think that would be a good idea? Yakushima (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading that edit now, I realise that it was "hemogoblin", not "hemoglobin" as I had first thought. The joke went right over my head. Either way, it's a very questionable name for a bedbug!
I can change the protection if you like; bedbug certainly does seem to attract vandals more than most other articles, possibly just because it's a popular article which has historically been under par. You're doing excellent work bringing it up to standard, so I'll happily do whatever I can to help you continue. Semi-protection, more or less indefinitely, would seem appropriate in this case. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


I have re-inserted the photo that you deleted from the earwig article because it does in fact provide "encyclopaedic value", and moreover is both interesting and educational. In case you're wondering, I took both photos and each one is time-stamped: the first photo (taken 17 June) shows the female brooding the eggs. The second photo (taken 2nd July) shows the female caring for the newly hatched young which are clearly distinguishable as first-instar earwigs. The eggs only hatched today. How do I know that? Because I've been checking the nest every day since discovering it. Comparing the 2 time-stamps on photos showing the same nest days apart provides the reader with compelling proof of maternal behavior from a female earwig. Reading about this phenomenon is one thing, but seeing it actually happening is another i.e. a picture is worth a thousand words. This should have been self-evident. Having 2 photos of an earwig's nest will do no great harm, especially when one considers the daily barrage of wilful vandalism which is directed against Wikipedia. Nabokov (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess there's a certain amount of difference of opinion here. I think a demonstration of a nest with the female tending the eggs, along with the image above of the different instars, allows one to infer the stages that follow (larvae in the nest). Alternatively, showing the female with the young larvae in the nest allows one to infer the preceding egg stage. Having two shots of a nest which doesn't exactly fill the frame seems excessive for the value they bring. Bear in mind that these images are going to be seen as thumbnails by the majority of readers; the eggs / larvae are not going to be very clear given the composition at that resolution. There are a few other images in that article that should probably be reviewed: many appear to be nothing more than pretty pictures of an earwig, without contributing encyclopaedic value. I won't remove your image again, but I think a cropped version, possibly with the two images combined, would be a far more effective illustration. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a cropped version showing 2 combined images would be the best compromise. Unfortunately I don't have the means to do that, so perhaps someone else out there can help by combining 2 cropped photos together? Having 2 photos showing maternal behavior by an earwig over an extended time-scale tells a compelling (possibly even touching) story of maternal devotion which most people can relate to in some way. Displaying one photo of the earwig's nest (showing a single point in time) doesn't have the same visual impact. Having 2 photos of 2 different points in time (combined into a single image if possible) would be best. Otherwise, if a single photo is displayed, the same kind of people who assert that the Apollo moon landings were faked would believe (photo 1) that the female had just laid the eggs and was about to leave and (photo 2) the female wasn't the one which laid the eggs and had just chanced on the scene to eat the newly hatched earwigs. Never underestimate the perversity of some of the people out there who read Wikipedia. Nabokov (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Monobia quadridens[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ITIS template[edit]

I left a comment at Template talk:ITIS. It looks like you work on biologically related stuff often so I won't question your edit to the template. Thanks for picking that up.  –droll [chat] 18:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere --Stemonitis (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Common names[edit]

In reference to this—I'm sure you'll like the "common names" proposed for Neacomys paracou and Thomasomys ucucha. Ucucha 08:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha – that's awful! I don't understand the motivation behind names like that. The reason for creating a "common name" can only be because someone thinks the lay person can't cope with the scientific name (which is itself slightly insulting, but I digress); why would you just give them the scientific name backwards‽ No doubt a few years down the line, the scientific name of one such taxon will change, and the common name will stay the same and the confusion will all increase enormously (e.g. "Branchiostoma, the amphioxus"). --Stemonitis (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The background here is that Musser and Carleton, who wrote the chapter on rodents like these in the reference work Mammal Species of the World, preferred not to use "mouse" and "rat" as the common name for the native American rodents, which aren't closely related to "true" mice and rats. That's an understandable position, but their choice to instead use the genus name as a basis for common names led to absurdities like those two.
Changes in scientific names have also already happened here: most of the species Musser and Carleton called "Oryzomys" are now no longer in Oryzomys (the "Angouya Oryzomys" is now Sooretamys angouya, not Oryzomys angouya), and some of the species they called "akodonts" are now no longer in the tribe Akodontini, but in Abrotrichini. It serves as a good reminder why we shouldn't mechanically use "common" names. On the other hand, "Primordial Tapecua" is too good to remove, even though it's nonsense. Ucucha 10:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

FP Crustaceans[edit]

Hi Stemonitis!
Old photos with new status:

With best regards, George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hund's Rule[edit]

I don't know why you changed the redirect pages about 3 years ago, but I changed them back. Multiple pages using the words Hund's Rule redirected to the list, while they should redirect to the only one most frequently used. It's more practical to have it redirect to what is asked than simply assume people want to see all of it. If you still want to change it back, please give me a very good reason to do so. I know I'm currently not logged in on this location, but that shouldn't matter. -- (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, and I have no recollection of the reasoning behind it. It may be best to fix any incoming links to point directly to the relevant article anyway; "Hund's Rule" is, after all, ambiguous. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Velia caprai[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Velia caprai at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested another alt hook at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Stenotus_binotatus Smartse (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Macropodia falcifera[edit]


I have written to the authors of the Two Oceans, to ask whether they know of any synonymy for M. falcifera, because apart from their reference, the South African crustacean reference I generally work with, I regret to say, is Barnard, which was published in 1951. We don't have as many crustacean specialists as I would like!

However, since Two Oceans has recently been republished, my best guess would be that falcifera is an up to date and accurate name, but as we know, people make mistakes, and also, sometimes obscure endemic species can fall through the cracks. So my suggestion on this one is to wait and see what Branch and Griffiths have to say and alter the Wiki accordingly. I'm not sure what else is an acceptable option.

Seascapeza (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

I got a mail back from George Branch who said that they know there is a problem with M. falcifera, but they have still not obtained information as to what it should be called. I have sent a follow up email to their Arthropod checker to see if he has any more current information, which he had failed to get from Peter Ng at the time of publication -- the book has been published with M. falcifera as the secies name in the absence of an alternative for the moment. Perhaps, if you have a means of communication with Peter Ng, you could also ask him?

regards Seascapeza (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I have no connection with Peter Ng or any of his co-authors, and while I would be interested in the reply, it's not necessarily of relevance to us at Wikipedia. If the consensus among scientists is to call is Macropodia falcifera, then so should we, and until someone publishes a synonymy in a reputable source, we cannot include one. To do so, even on the basis of personal communication with a world-renowned expert, would constitute original research. So, "Macropodia falcifera" it is! --Stemonitis (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. I'm just pleased the beastie has an acceptable name we can hang on it! And will keep an eye out for a publication with its new name, whatever that may be.

Seascapeza (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The worry is that it will turn out to be a junior synonym of one of the other species. That would probably imply at least a broader distribution, and would need the article to be updated accordingly. The most likely candidate appears to be Macropodia rostrata, since WoRMS suggests a South African distribution for that. But this is all idle speculation. As you say, we'll have to wait and see. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just received a mail from the Arthropod fact checker, who is going to try to get hold of Peter Ng and find out -- it's starting to sound like most probably the type specimen and description are going to have to be reviewed -- unless, by some unlikely chance it slipped through Peter Ng's net. And if it's a junior synonym of M. rostrata, well, we can just shift the article across to there and broaden distribution, no problem. To me, the only way it could have got here from there would be through ballast water: not impossible at the time of description I shouldn't have thought. Otherwise perhaps we are dealing with an endemic which has strangely escaped attention. Life in the Wikipedia sure can be interesting.

best wishes Seascapeza (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Systematic Biology[edit]

Hi, You moved this article a while ago, but I think this should properly redirect to systematics (or be a dab page), the scientific field. The journal should be at Systematic Biology (journal). --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I move it because Systematic Biology was redirecting rather pointlessly to Systematic Biology (journal), rather than from any deeply-held opinion about the best title. I prefer the current system, and it looks like all the incoming links intend the journal and not systematics, but I can also see an argument in favour of redirecting it there. Feel free to open up a move request if you think it's best the other way. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Velia caprai[edit]

-- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of South Park reference[edit]

Hi Stemonitis, In this edit [3] you removed a popular culture reference. I see from your userboxes you may not be an American. South Park is for adults on Comedy Central and is famous across the United States - any adult will know it. It has 4 Primetime Emmys and a Peabody Award. I was hoping you removed it thinking it was a small-time kids show - and if you wouldn't mind if I reinserted the reference. --mboverload@ 19:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I know South Park, and I know something about Anostraca. I cannot see how an episode of one warrants mention in an article about the other. It doesn't matter how many awards the cartoon has won, it still isn't relevant to an article about crustaceans, just as there is no mention of South Park in the articles on chickenpox (cf. chickenpox), raisins (cf. raisins) or pandemic (cf. pandemic). A significant appearance of Sea-Monkeys (or a spoof thereof) in South Park does not mean that South Park is significant in a discussion of Sea-Monkeys (or any other Artemia for that matter). --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Greetings, Stemonitis! Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dromia dormia[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Megapenthes lugens[edit]

RlevseTalk 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Stenotus binotatus[edit]

RlevseTalk 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Turning pages into redirects[edit]

Hello there Stemonitis. First of all, I love the articles you creatie and the work you do, you are one of few people working on insects and other critters that nobody seems to care about. I noticed you are replacing some stubby bot-created species pages with redirects. I agree that some of them have no value in their current state and nothing is lost by doing this (such as Adejeania brevihirta and the like). In my opinion though, replacing the Empis species that user Simuliid has created is somewhat over the top. He is one of the only people making insect articles at all. Destroying his work is not a good way of motivating people to keep contributing to wikipedia. Anyway, I added some info on distribution and a link to Fauna Europaea and thus reverted these edits. Hope you dont mind. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I only upmerge article such stubs when they add exactly zero information to the article higher up the taxonomic hierarchy. An article that only states "Empis borealis is a species of Empis" is worthless, if the article Empis already has a list of species that includes Empis borealis. (Since you've added further information, I wouldn't dream of re-merging them, by the way.) I don't think one-line restatements of information already given elsewhere really counts as an "article", and it's a while since Simuliid has created a real article. Your edit summary states that "Every species deserves an article!", which is true, but what they've got at the moment is not an article, it's a space where an article might go. It merely creates a need for large categories, new stub categories, and all kinds of associated work (multiple updates when a taxonomy changes, or when a new guideline is agreed, etc., etc.), without actually providing any information at all. Wikipedia is better off without them. Once they're informative, then that's fine.
As an example, the latest bunch of "articles" that I've redirected were the genera of Lecithoceridae, which were worse than uninformative; the taxoboxes were all massively wrong (Order Diptera!?). To correct them would have been a huge amount of work (redirecting them was a similar amount), and that effort could have been better spent on adding real content to real articles (it would be much better to have a good article on Lecithoceridae than pointless one-liners on each genus). These articles were created for zero gain, but for a real cost. Do not mourn their loss. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, especially on the articles created en-masse using AWB. They are uninformative and usually worthless if not incorrect, since the people creating them do not check if the species is even valid. I work on moths and butterflies and am still struggling with moth genera created this way. Although most genera are there, there is no info (i.e. species, genus authority, etc.) and there are also articles on genera sunken into synonymity over a century ago, mostly creating confusion rather than providing usefull info. Anyway, I hate seeing articles about valid species with images and such be replaced by a redirect. If you find more of these, please leave me a note and I will try to salvage them. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen Category:Tachinidae stubs? It's the 7th largest stub category on en.wikipedia, and all its articles together contain almost no information that isn't repeated at List of Tachinidae genera and species. Tachinidae itself is a reasonable article, albeit without inline references, but I have yet to see another that is actually informative (admittedly, I may have overlooked the few good ones among the thousands of, er..., less good ones). No, that's not true; there is one other non-stub in the family: Ormia ochracea. I don't doubt that some of the "articles" have pictures, but salvaging them [all] will/would be a Herculean effort. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, with "these" I meant the ones similar to the Empis species (i.e.: with a picture, authority, synonyms, refs, etc. but without any real information in the main article, I think these are worth some effort), not the ones you are talking about here, although I would love to be able to salvage these too, that is beyond my possiblities. These are probably all created within an hour by a single user and without doing any research at all. I dont understand these people at all. I have seen them creating 1000's of geography stubs in a few hours time which are quite similar. Stuff like: XX is a village in Croatia. Yeah.. Thats useful. There should be a policy to ban these creations. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I know the sort you mean. If I find any, I'll try to stay my trigger finger for long enough to drop you a line. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Done, except the excess taxonomy. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Actia stubs[edit]

Can I ask why you retargeted the template that went with this category and then deleted the category itself as empty. Waacstats (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Forget it I know see that you have deleted/redirected the articles that used the template so that it explains it, sorry for troubling you. Waacstats (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


If you want this category deleted, please proceed with deletion process rather than just blanking it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching it. Four days after blanking it qualifies for CSD, and I'll delete it then. Everything's under control. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. Too bad we don't have a template that says something like "category emptied on xxxxx in anticipation of deletion". Would you support creation of something like that? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that seems sensible. Fortunately, it's not too frequent an occurrence, although it would save some confusion. An alternative would be to alter the rules at CSD to allow a category that has been emptied and is unlikely to be refilled (in this case, the articles don't exist any more) to be deleted immediately. That might not be popular, and it seems a little unfair on the people who made the category and populated it in the first place. A template like the one you suggest would be able to automatically flag the category when it fulfilled the CSD criteria, so that's probably the better alternative. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)