Talk:Sundadont


 * This originally linked to Sinodont, which it obviously shouldn't. Sundadonty is not Sinodonty; the Sinodont page is almost exclusively about Sinodonty; a wikipedian who can type up an article on Sundadonty (and other dental patterns) should.   Chiss Boy   11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No Redirect to Sinodonty
Unless there is going to be a description of Sundadont in the Sinodonty page, Sundadont definitely should not be redirected to Sinodonty any more than blonde should be put under brunette. Which brings up another point: the two can be merged into one article, but labeled under dental patterns or something similar, and again, there should be an actual description of Sundadonty other than it not being Sinodonty.  Chiss Boy  11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The page does in fact describe Sinodonty and Sundadonty equally; if you have more information on either, please add it. One could argue that the page should be called "Sinodonty and Sundadonty" (I don't think there is a generic term) with Sinodonty and Sundadonty both as redirects to it, though this seems like a very trivial issue. Separating into two articles is possible if there is substantial information that applies to one and not the other (so far, they are only applied in comparison with each other), but changing the Sundadont page to a one-sentence stub with no information and no links, as it is now, is pointless and irresponsible. --JWB 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)