Talk:Ommatoiulus sabulosus aimatopodus

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arthropods Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animalparty : I copy here your message, so my answer is more visible :

Thanks for contributing the article Ommatoiulus sabulosus aimatopodus. I think this is a good case for merging and incorporation into Ommatoiulus sabulosus. Both articles are extremely short, and if the aimatopodus is a disputed taxon (e.g. form versus subspecies), it may be better to simply discuss it along with other subspecies or forms, for proper context. Not every subspecies needs or warrants a devoted Wikipedia article, and too much fragmentation of content can impede comprehension. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi ! I understand your point of vue, since I considered it before, but I came to different conclusions, that this should be maintained as a distinct article, fore various reasons :

• First, this was created in response to a lack on iNaturalist : Ommatoiulus sabulosus aimatopodus has its own page on iNaturalist here : http://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/516669-Ommatoiulus-sabulosus-aimatopodus that leads here : deleting this page would then make this page orphan...
• The current status of Ommatoiulus sabulosus aimatopodus is currently unknown, so it is possible that, in the future, it would be transfered from a taxon status to another, which will be much harder if this page do no longer exists, for example, if it had been merged into Ommatoiulus sabulosus... Actually, the main goal of the iNat page quoted before if to study its distribution, in order to add more infos on the subject.
• Ommatoiulus sabulosus aimatopodus had been, and will probably be, the subject of various research projects, such as [1] for example. The article is short just because of lack of time, because it was just created yesterday. That doesn't mean that it can't pretend to be longer... Actually, there's probably much more to say about O. sabulosus aimatopodus than about the nominal form, which is why it should deserve its own article. See, for example, the equivalent article on French Wikipedia here : Ommatoiulus sabulosus aimatopodus, also started yesterday, that is yet 3 ko, more than double of nominal subspecies article. In a general way, the current length of an article should not be a motive or keeping it or not, but rather considering its potential length...

Cheers, -Fraf (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]