Talk:Oviparous

Hey, this doesn't make sense! Which word are you defining? -KF 09:27, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It's defining Oviparous.


 * Then why does it still say "ovoviparous" in the first line? --KF 09:54, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Typo I'd assume. Fixed.


 * Cut and paste error, sorry for confusion, will hide and do small edits in the future :-) Stefan 10:30, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best merged with Viviparous and Ovoviviparous as I can't these three being more than stubs by themselves. Angela 09:41, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Question,(wrong place but will try here anyway). What is the general idea, if I think a page is missing but I can not write more than a stub, is it better to do nothing or to make a page and have a debate like this? I thought this was the way to do it in a wiki? Stefan 10:30, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'd go for the stub, I think there may be a case for doing what Angela suggests, and merging the articles (reproductive strategies?), with the current pages as redirects, but they have some potential to grow, so I don't think it's urgent jimfbleak 10:42, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It depends on whether you think it will ever be more than a stub. If you just want to start it off, then that's fine, but in this case my concern was that there wasn't much that could be added to these three, which is why I thought merging was better. Also, try to avoid pages that only one sentance as they might be deleted on sight for being sub-stubs. Angela 18:29, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've no strong feelings either way-I suppose that any additions are likely just to be examples, so perhaps a merge is the best stategy jimfbleak 19:34, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)