Talk:Antilope

Monotypic, should be merged
While reading Sclater and Thomas' account of the bluebuck, I saw mention of this genus, which appears to be monotypic. So according to English Wiki animal conventions, it should be merged to the species article. What do you say, ? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I will do it. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 17:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice, fixed some selflinks. Seems it has been redirected multiple times in the past, but stubs have then been created for no good reasons since. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are too quick! I think the WikiProject template above should now be removed? Adding an unnecessary stub to the WikiProject... Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 17:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, actually... I've seen some redirects tagged with wikiprojects before, or maybe those were mistakes? FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to NA. Sainsf  (talk · contribs) 17:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirects should automatically detect as NA-importance, and provided the project banner template is set up right, it will automatically detect them as Redirect-class as well (though the mammal banner isn't set up right, and just auto-detects as NA-class). Class/importance parameters aren't necessary for redirects tagged for a WikiProject (I came across this conversation when I noticed an NA-class/Low-importance article in the mammal table). As to whether redirects should have WikiProject tags in the first place? Well, there's not much point to that, and it isn't typical practice. But I've been chided for removing WikiProject tags from redirects, so I no longer remove them outright. WikiProject Turtles is one animal related project that routinely tags redirects. I have been adding WikiProject banners to plant related redirects from/to monotypic taxa. If Wikipedia were a taxonomic database, monotypic taxa would be afforded multiple items at different taxonomic ranks. As an encyclopedia, it makes sense that Wikipedia doesn't have duplicate articles for the same organism. But the names at other ranks remain important search terms. If any organism related redirects are worth keeping a WikiProject tag on, it's the monotypic redirects such as this one. Plantdrew (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, so it would mainly be synonyms and alternate common names that would not be tagged? FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just my practice, not any broad consensus...there can be lots of synonyms and alternate common name redirects and I'm not motivated to tag them all, but there are not so many monotypic redirects. Adding tags to redirects is not a common practice. On the other hand, removing tags from redirects that already have them is sometimes contentious. Somebody associated with WikiProject Turtles went all in and tagged most of the relevant synonyms and alternate common names. I think monotypic redirects are a little more important than synonyms and alternate common names, but I'm not motivated to tag all the monotypic redirects I come across; just the plant ones. Tagging redirects really isn't that useful in most cases, but with monotypic redirects tagging can help catch changes in monotypic status or moves from monotypic genus to binomial title. Plantdrew (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)