Talk:Sandgroper (insect)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Redirection of Cylindrachetidae
[edit]G'day Elonka. I'm a bit puzzled why you made Cylindrachetidae a redirect rather than leave it as a "definition" (stub) page.
As I said in my creation note, "Create page so people don't get confused. Redir's won't do here 'cos it would be circular." I had intended to make it a redirect, but since I reference it from the Sandgroper taxobox, surely that would be a circular redirect?
I'm copying this to the Sandgroper Talk page, perhaps you would like to respond to it there, just to keep other people in the picture. Gordon | Talk, 25 September 2006 @12:51 UTC
- Hi, thanks for asking. It's not a major issue with me, and I apologize if there's any confusion. I discovered the page while doing a routine sweep for uncategorized pages via Special:Uncategorizedpages, where I run through 1000 pages at a time, and tag them with {{uncat}}. Sometimes I may also do maintenance if something looks quick and easy to fix. For example, when I'm already in a pile of pages that are missing categories, it's not uncommon for me to run across pages which look like failed redirects, such as by a new user who wants to create a redirect with a simple "see also", but wasn't sure of the syntax. In those cases, I can quickly "fix" the page by turning it into a formal redirect, and then I move on. That's what the Cylindrachetidae page appeared to be when I glanced at it. If you'd like to re-establish it, by all means do so. I'd recommend making it a more formal-looking page though -- follow the format of other similar subjects, ensure that it's categorized, and include at least one reference showing where the information came from, and you should be good. And if you need any other assistance, please don't hesitate to ask! --Elonka 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I will re-establish it, and at some stage make it more formal -- you're right, it does need a reference, I need to find where I left it :( And a category or three... I agree it looks a bit untidy, but in order to complete the Orthoptera ordo, this seemed the least inelegant method. My first draft of the Sandgroper article actually contained the taxobox info as part of the text, most un-wiki! This way there is at least some wiggle-room if any of the genuses become sufficiently important to rate their own articles :) But not tonght, I've just knocked off from a 13-hour day, and I have two more to go. Gordon | Talk, 26 September 2006 @12:20 UTC
- FYI, the new version looks perfect. :) I'm going to go ahead and remove it from my watchlist, but if you ever need any other help, please feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll pop back in. Good luck! --Elonka 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I will re-establish it, and at some stage make it more formal -- you're right, it does need a reference, I need to find where I left it :( And a category or three... I agree it looks a bit untidy, but in order to complete the Orthoptera ordo, this seemed the least inelegant method. My first draft of the Sandgroper article actually contained the taxobox info as part of the text, most un-wiki! This way there is at least some wiggle-room if any of the genuses become sufficiently important to rate their own articles :) But not tonght, I've just knocked off from a 13-hour day, and I have two more to go. Gordon | Talk, 26 September 2006 @12:20 UTC
Stub?
[edit]Is this page correctly classified as a stub? Adondai (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)