Talk:Gymnogyps howardae
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Why?
[edit]Super Dromaeosaurus: Because it's a stub on a paleospecies, and we don't have articles on paleospecies (as opposed to genera) unless there's an unusual amount to say about them. This is standard for paleo taxon articles. And usually the only person who complains is whoever created the stub in the first place, and for some reason believes that there is extra credit or prestige in something being an article on its own, even if it's doomed to be a permastub. Do you really insist on me shlepping this to the Wikiproject and have everyone else tell you as well that this is bog-standard housekeeping? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I always thought that when one species of a genus is still extant, it was the common practice to create articles for the other extinct species as well. But if that's not the case you can merge it to the genus. And you can relax a bit, it is perfectly normal that I want to defend an article I have created. Super Ψ Dro 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Super Dromaeosaurus:...sigh... okay, sorry for snapping. I've been having lots of these issues with people who don't know what the usual processes at WP:Paleontology are; I should at least have looked at your contribs before firing off. Apologies. - Yes, there is a tendency for stubs to pop up for extinct species of extant genera, but they frequently suffer from the same problem as do those from extinct genera: a single descriptive paper, not much to say beyond stub length, and likely to remain stubs forevermore. The assessment is the same in both cases - we go by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Which_articles_should_be_created, and consider whether the reader is better off jumping around three stubs, or having it all combined in one location. If the material is there for a standalone, it's all good (e.g. I'm not about to merge Gymnogyps varonai, which has a good start class size.) - Really we should be treating extant species the same way, there's not much gained from ten thousand one-line beetle stubs; but consensus remains otherwise. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. I understand that sometimes the attitude of some users can be frustrating. Since as for now I have no intention of expanding this article, I have voluntarily merged it again with the genus. Cheers and good health! Super Ψ Dro 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also... what is supposed to happen with this talk page? Super Ψ Dro 21:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- It sticks around... plenty of redirects have talk pages; they get repurposed as article talk pages if the redirect is ever expanded into an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alright then. Super Ψ Dro 13:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- It sticks around... plenty of redirects have talk pages; they get repurposed as article talk pages if the redirect is ever expanded into an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also... what is supposed to happen with this talk page? Super Ψ Dro 21:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. I understand that sometimes the attitude of some users can be frustrating. Since as for now I have no intention of expanding this article, I have voluntarily merged it again with the genus. Cheers and good health! Super Ψ Dro 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Super Dromaeosaurus:...sigh... okay, sorry for snapping. I've been having lots of these issues with people who don't know what the usual processes at WP:Paleontology are; I should at least have looked at your contribs before firing off. Apologies. - Yes, there is a tendency for stubs to pop up for extinct species of extant genera, but they frequently suffer from the same problem as do those from extinct genera: a single descriptive paper, not much to say beyond stub length, and likely to remain stubs forevermore. The assessment is the same in both cases - we go by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Which_articles_should_be_created, and consider whether the reader is better off jumping around three stubs, or having it all combined in one location. If the material is there for a standalone, it's all good (e.g. I'm not about to merge Gymnogyps varonai, which has a good start class size.) - Really we should be treating extant species the same way, there's not much gained from ten thousand one-line beetle stubs; but consensus remains otherwise. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)