Talk:Metzgeriaceae

Request for Third Party

User:Coccyx Bloccyx has added {{refimprove}} to this page. The page is currently a two sentence stub, and is tagged as a stub. My underdtanding is that a stub is prima facie understood to need references and improvement, so the additional template is superfluous. CB has warned me about removing his addition. I am looking now for a third opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to be still unsettled; e.g. see Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 1#This template should not be used with stubs. and Wikipedia talk:Stub#Are stubs immune to reference requirements?. I have my opinion, but this doesn't really seem the place to have the general debate. I've added some refs. Hesperian 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a lack of AGF in the warning.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. But my reaction is that both combatants should have taken the matter to the talk page once they saw there was a disagreement, rather than edit warring here and here. Better late than never, I guess, and Hesperian seems to have found the right solution (that is, it takes less time to find enough references for a two sentence stub than to argue about templates). Kingdon (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

First, as it is right now, it's cited well enough, so it's not needed. However, I don't think a stub template necessarily implies the addition of references- if it's an unreferenced stub, we can't be sure it exists at all. Stubs do need some type of source. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see your point, anyone familiar with either plants or taxonomy (or even Google) can determine whether or not a plant family exists, and it is generally held by biologists that all taxa are inherently notable. The only remaining issue would be whether a taxon name was currently in correct use (see Cacalia, for example), but even there an article is important if anyone has ever used the superseded name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:PROVEIT, which states that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Further, Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines notes that widely accepted scientific facts do not need citations to support them. So, you have an interesting point, Jeremy, but it's at odds with Wikipedia policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific citation guidelines is a guideline, not a policy; I don't think it's unlikely that someone would challenge this. From somebody who posts a lot at AfD, and knows nothing about science, people will create hoaxes like this. While someone with a knowledge of science can confirm it, there are a great many people without that knowledge. Besides, if it's that common, sourcing it shouldn't be a concern. Why fight the tag rather than add a source or two? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't think small. Please remember that a guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow", so waving your hand dismissively and saying "it's a guideleine" doesn't mean it isn't to be heeded. I'm not concerned about the one article; I'm concerned about the many others who will be frustrated when this problem occurs again and again. I'm thinking bigger, and thinking of others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]