This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I removed the needs expanded tag as it is a stub, which means this. I think also that the needs expert and no footnotes tags are implied by it being a stub. Putting these tags on species stubs will overload categories to the point of uselessness, imo. Consider removing these two tags as long as the stub category is in place. --Blechnic (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but should we have such articles in the first place? If an editor is just trying to see how many articles they can create, we are going to end up with a lot of useless articles. Doug Weller (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general agreement among species editors on Wikipedia is that if it is a species it merits an article. Many of these are simply stubs, although most also have at least a taxobox with a Linnean taxonomy. When it comes to species articles and points for creating them, I think that the field is wide open: if it's accurate, then it's easy to create. If you disagree with this point, you get to take it up with all of the biology editors--head to WP:Tree of Life, I think! Many species stubs, by the way, are created by bots. --Blechnic (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I should have thought of the possiblity of bots, this is an obvious application for them. If the bio editors are happy, I shall leave it at that although it's a bit of a shame. Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
