Talk:Araeomolis

Merger Proposal
This discussion is in regards to the following articles: Araeomolis albipicta, Araeomolis guianensis, Araeomolis haematoneura, Araeomolis irregularis, Araeomolis nigripuncta, Araeomolis persimilis, Araeomolis peruviana, Araeomolis propinqua, Araeomolis rhodographa, Araeomolis robusta, Araeomolis rubens and Araeomolis sanguinea —  —  —  —  —

The majority of the articles I propose be merged only have one sentence. As per Wikiproject Insects criteria for inclusion: "As a general guideline though, combine several species or subspecies into a single article when there isn't enough text to make more than short, unsatisfying stubs otherwise. If the article grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later". Perhaps this is a better option for now? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I will expand with synonyms and distribution. Please do not merge. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that this article be expanded something along the lines of the following:

And so on. That makes the information much more presentable and easily digestible rather than having to go to a bunch of different articles - Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 11:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and implemented a sortable table. I'd now propose that individual species articles be redirected to this one. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 11:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks nice, only problem is that we dont do it like this on any of the other genus pages (there are 1000's) so implementing this on this one genus page will make it inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia. I am not up to the task of changing all our existing genus pages... Furthermore, adding information about distribution in two places (i.e. the genus and species page) will introduce extra work when new info becomes available (i.e.: you would have to add the info on two pages). I would suggest to not introduce a new way of making a genus page... Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am furthermore very against linking species pages to the genus page, since it is necessary to link synonyms to the specific species page. Also linking these to the genus page will create a mess. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you discussed this also on various project pages and on wilhelmina will's talk page: may I ask you to please dont go on a crusade to merge all these species pages? I have been working hard for 2-3 years to create species pages with the correct taxonomy. You are about to embark on a course to destroy all of that. There is consensus that these articles have a right to exist. Having them as seperate stubs encourages other users to add content and do so under the correct scientific name. You just noticed some articles and decided it would be better to merge, without much experience working on Lepidoptera articles. I would be very happy to have more editors working on Lepidoptera, so if you are interested in it, feel free to expand articles. All species articles can be expanded, since a species description was always published somewhere. If you want to be helpful: look up descriptions and add them to the articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish to address a few issues in the comments you made there:
 * "you still insist on merging and even embarked on a course to change the existing consensus that species all deserve an article." - I haven't merged anything. I proposed a merger based on a reading of WP:INSECT. criteria for inclusion. I'll quote the relevant part: combine several species or subspecies into a single article when there isn't enough text to make more than short, unsatisfying stubs otherwise
 * "may I ask you to please dont go on a crusade to merge all these species pages" - I have done no such thing. I cross posted to a few locations to bring a wider audience for the discussion.
 * "There is consensus that these articles have a right to exist" - As far as I can tell that goes against the WP:INSECTS policy which is why I proposed a merger in the first place. Can you link me to the previous consensus of the matter?
 * "adding information about distribution in two places (i.e. the genus and species page) will introduce extra work when new info becomes available (i.e.: you would have to add the info on two pages)." - My proposal is that the species pages are redirected to the genus page resulting in only one page that needs to be edited (as opposed to one per species) which surely reduces extra work
 * - Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you merged, but you are insisting on it, and that is what I said. You are trying to get consensus to merge, hence changing the existing practice of making seperate articles. If you read discussions about proposed deletions of articles similar to the ones you suggest to merge, you will see that the consensus always is to keep the articles. I cannot be bothered to sift through wikipedia guidelines to find the article which states it, but rest assured that it is so. This discussion comes down to lumping vs. splitting and I have had this discussion numerous times before. Furthermore, you are citing WP Insects, but fail to mention that it does not state that these stubs must be merged, but merely suggests it. The "policy" starts with "At what level is it worth having a separate Wikipedia article for a particular insect? Any level you like. If we write individual articles for all one million-odd described species, we will be at it for a long time! The simplest (and probably best) rule is to have no rule: if you have the time and energy to write up some particularly obscure subspecies that most people have never even heard of, go to it!. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am trying to get a broader range of editors involved to establish consensus. My stance is for merging. I'd just like to say also that this is not a 'personal crusade' by any means (and I'm not inferring you said it was, just stating it for clarity), it's not directed at either yourself or wilhelmina. It just so happened that these articles were what caught my attention. If we can establish consensus (or that one was established previously) that all these articles should exist I'm quite happy to concede. Personally, I still think, for species articles where very little content exists which can be summerised in a table within the genus articles, they should exist as redirects to the genus article. That's my feeling on the matter. Like I say, I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of this with people.


 * Regarding the existing consensus, I've been trying to find something on wikipedia showing consensus either way but I have failed to find anything. It'd be helpful for my understanding of the matter at hand if you could link something for me to read. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion about notability of species at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Rhododendron_species (I remembered that one, but there are very many more). Furthermore, read this Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built to understand the importance of stubs and you might want to look at WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. I am sorry about this heated discussion, but please understand: on a regular basis some user comes along and slaps on a merger or deletion template on a number of pages. Most of these users have not put in any work creating content and have no experience with species, but see a few articles and start this same discussion. Having this discussion over and over is frustrating and time consuming. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does it for me, feel free to remove the proposed merger templates on the relevant pages. If this is a common discussion perhaps it's worth creating a section on WP:INSECTS or even WP:ANIMALS about it, basically expanding WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. I searched around a few wikiprojects before I proposed the merger but didn't come across anything obvious. Unfortunately, regardless of whether its frustrating and time consuming it will likely continue to happen and WP:DUE is on those wishing to keep the content. Coming along to the discussion and saying I cannot be bothered to sift through wikipedia guidelines to find the article which states it, but rest assured that it is so. isn't a valid rebuttle and many editors (myself included) won't give based on that. If you have a policy section that can be easily linked it should nip future discussions in the bud. It was difficult for me, as an outside editor, to get on the same page basically.


 * Regarding Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built, I am fully aware of the important of stubs and I wasn't intending to demolish the house. Rather, I'll liken it to taking a bunch of scattered bricks for a house and placing them together to make the house easier to build when the builders arrive later. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be some policy in writing about this to prevent this discussion from popping up. Like I said: I'm sorry for the heated discussion, because I know you mean well. Thanks and if you are interested in species/biology articles, dont feel discouraged. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm interested in everything on wikipedia, too many tabs, not enough time. I would encourage you to post about setting up a policy in writing or an RfC regarding one. If do get round to doing it feel free to grab me on my talk page to offer my thoughts. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone who spends a considerable amount of time expanding species stubs into longer articles, I support Ruigeroeland on this. I think it would be a retrograde step to merge these stubs into a genus article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)