Talk:Annandaliella ernakulamensis

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders 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.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Proposed merge with Annandaliella

This article already exists as a stub, although this new page may have more information. Garchy (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on one of the species in the genus. Wikipedia has separate articles for genera and their constitutent species. Plantdrew (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not already exist as a stub. As Plantdrew says above, this article is about one of the three species of the genus Annandaliella, not about the genus itself. A merge would be quite wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew:, as you may see the merge status was resolved two days ago. The stub tag will be added because, until it is expanded beyond the information now it is only a stub. Check out the other three species in the genus and you will see the same spider stub tag. Garchy (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to reply to me, not Plantdrew. There's only one other article for a species in the genus, not three. The judgement of what is or is not a stub or a start is a fine one, and I'm not going to argue about it. For me an image or more on the Taxonomy would tip the balance more clearly.

On a different point, there's nothing wrong with redlinks; there's an airport at Ermakulam (see http://jobs.mitula.in/jobs/international-airport-ermakulam) so it's sufficiently noteworthy to have an article. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the discussion, I understand your concerns and that it is a fine line. The red link removal was accidental, I'm not sure how I rolled that edit back but I fixed it immediately. Garchy (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]