Talk:Cylindrachetidae

Why this page?
When I created the sandgroper page, it was obvious that the taxoboxes appeared to follow their own "fork" -- that is, one could drill down through the taxonomic hierarchy to virtually any level. So rather than leaving a "dead end", dumping readers into the detailed sandgroper article, it seemed more elegant to leave a "waiting room" in case later research warranted other detailed articles. Gordon | Talk, 30 September 2006 @01:33 UTC

Potential merge
I see that there's some disagreement about whether or not to merge the Sandgroper (insect) article into Cylindrachetidae, so let's please talk about this first, in a civil fashion, to ensure consensus. Multiple reverts aren't doing Wikipedia any good. :) What are the pro's and con's of keeping them separate, vs. merging them into one? ---Elonka 14:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * G'day Elonka. Thanks for the intervention.  I'll say now that following my last (pre rv-war) edits, I was beginning to think that maybe I was painting myself into a corner by going for parallel articles.  As for the pro's & con's, for myself I'm going to bed now and will have a think over breakfast and after Church.  Sometime after lunch I think.  Gordon | Talk, 30 September 2006 @14:16 UTC

Merge request
OK then, let's do this the long-winded way. Where something may be known by any of two or more names, the article should be placed at one only, with redirects put in place from the other(s). "Sandgroper" is a slang word / common name for the family Cylindrachetidae (and also has a few other meanings which needn't concern us here). We therefore don't need both sandgroper (insect) and Cylindrachetidae. In a series of discussions, no convincing reason has yet been proposed why two articles should be needed here, although I look forward to hearing some. --Stemonitis 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Gordon's pro's & con's
The pro's:
 * The "taxobox" pages, ie: the generic taxonomic description articles, do appear on a superficial level to follow their own "forks".
 * Having a "taxobox" page of the family allows entry to specific information regarding individual genuses and species when it emerges, functioning as a distribution node.

The con's:
 * Actually, Stemonitis is correct -- generic taxonomic description articles don't follow their own forks.
 * In this case the total knowledge of sandgropers and the sandgroper family is (by any standard) minute.
 * Because of this, both articles would necessarily duplicate each other to some extent, which is not desirable.

As it happens, following my last (pre rv-war) edits I was beginning to think that maybe I was painting myself into a corner by going for parallel articles, and I would probably have merged them myself at some not very distant time.

In Wiki the proverb be bold does not mean be authoritarian: while the letter of the law is essential for guidance, the Spirit of the Law is even more essential for neighbourliness. Wiki is guided by consensus, not by " D ecide A nnounce D efend". Unfortunately, I tend to react very badly to what I perceive as bullying -- it makes an extremely good defence in that people don't repeat the exercise.

I must say that in spite of taking a long deep breath I am still very unhappy about the way Stemonitis jumped in with no effort to seek consensus between the two of us. I am disturbed by his use of "through the tedious bureaucracy of a formal merge request" and "OK then, let's do this the long-winded way" which reveal an authoritarian attitude I can do without. However, I am keeping a lid on my emotions.

Now, in the spirit of Wiki, because I would probably have merged the articles anyway, I will accept a merge at this time. My original article was written to give some background to the Australian use of "sandgroper" for Western Australians, and thus to give people from other countries an idea of why we do it. So I would suggest -- given it is unlikely much work will be done on Cylindrachetae in the near future -- that Cylindrachetae should redirect to Sandgroper_(insect), especially as the use of the term is almost certainly "restricted to Australia". And yes, a couple of categories could well be removed -- but that applies to quite a few articles! Gordon | Talk, 1 October 2006 @07:19 UTC


 * That would seem to clear everything up, then. I have reversed the articles so that, as you requested, Sandgroper is the main article, and Cylindrachetidae the redirect (or did I misunderstand? - if so, please arrange them however you like). No hard feelings. Your point about duplicate categories appearing in a great many articles is quite true. I remove any that I come across, and would be glad of any assistance. I'm sure there are lots of other people doing so as well, but as far as I know there is no organised WikiProject dedicated to it, so it often goes unnoticed. --Stemonitis 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)