Talk:Metzgeriaceae

Request for Third Party
User:Coccyx Bloccyx has added refimprove to this page. The page is currently a two sentence stub, and is tagged as a stub. My underdtanding is that a stub is prima facie understood to need references and improvement, so the additional template is superfluous. CB has warned me about removing his addition. I am looking now for a third opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue seems to be still unsettled; e.g. see Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:Stub. I have my opinion, but this doesn't really seem the place to have the general debate. I've added some refs. Hesperian 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a lack of AGF in the warning.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess so. But my reaction is that both combatants should have taken the matter to the talk page once they saw there was a disagreement, rather than edit warring here and here.  Better late than never, I guess, and Hesperian seems to have found the right solution (that is, it takes less time to find enough references for a two sentence stub than to argue about templates). Kingdon (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
First, as it is right now, it's cited well enough, so it's not needed. However, I don't think a stub template necessarily implies the addition of references- if it's an unreferenced stub, we can't be sure it exists at all. Stubs do need some type of source. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I see your point, anyone familiar with either plants or taxonomy (or even Google) can determine whether or not a plant family exists, and it is generally held by biologists that all taxa are inherently notable. The only remaining issue would be whether a taxon name was currently in correct use (see Cacalia, for example), but even there an article is important if anyone has ever used the superseded name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:PROVEIT, which states that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Further, Scientific citation guidelines notes that widely accepted scientific facts do not need citations to support them.  So, you have an interesting point, Jeremy, but it's at odds with Wikipedia policy.   --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Scientific citation guidelines is a guideline, not a policy; I don't think it's unlikely that someone would challenge this. From somebody who posts a lot at AfD, and knows nothing about science, people will create hoaxes like this. While someone with a knowledge of science can confirm it, there are a great many people without that knowledge. Besides, if it's that common, sourcing it shouldn't be a concern. Why fight the tag rather than add a source or two? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think small. Please remember that a guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow", so waving your hand dismissively and saying "it's a guideleine" doesn't mean it isn't to be heeded.  I'm not concerned about the one article; I'm concerned about the many others who will be frustrated when this problem occurs again and again.  I'm thinking bigger, and thinking of others.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)