Talk:Hafnia

Hafnia (bacteria)
If there is nothing more on WP about the bacterial taxon Hafnia than what its parent taxon is, it's the merest dictdef and insufficient for disambiguation. Hafnia (bacteria) is nowhere used as a lk, even on the page that lists it, without other mention. --Jerzy•t 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that none of the other articles are actually named "Hafnia", I think when the Hafnia (bacterium) article has a bit more content it could be the main article, with this moved to Hafnia (disambiguation) as per German wikipedia. cyclosarin (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree, except that "a bit more" should not be construed just as "any at all". With a respectable stub, IMO; with a dictdef or less, it would be overwhelmed by the needed HatNote to Hafnia (disambiguation), besides wasting users' time & attention. --Jerzy•t 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was careless and grossly unfair of me. Do i make up for it my providing the needed Rdr? [wink] --Jerzy•t 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that the element is a transition metal rather than a rare earth, and a Mendeleev prediction, and that the oxide may be important industrially. FWIW, in that light, i favor equal disambiguation, with a slight preference for the oxide if a main topic is to be chosen before the fate of the oxide becomes clear. It's true that the compound's article's authors settled on a name (following a convention i'm unfamiliar with) that doesn't directly contend for the main-topic status, but i don't think that precludes it. I recall Dabs where the "main topic" is a Rdr to an article, rather than the article itself. In fact, without being able to recall an example, i said to myself that Kant should be one, and indeed Immanuel Kant bears the HatNote
 * --Jerzy•t 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jerzy•t 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)