Talk:Orders of centipedes

This article was nominated for merging in the past. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Splitting proposal

I propose that each section of this article could be split into its own article. I just don't think it's necessary to lump the five centipede orders into one article. 206.176.107.101 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was light discussion of that in the merger discussion.

I'm not sure if splitting this article up is a good idea. There isn't really enough content for each order to merit a separate article, and I don't think a set of stubs is much more useful to readers than a combined article. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with splitting that to be honest. @Edward-Woodrow, each groups have enough content for separate article, for example @Junnn11: expanded articles of Scolopendromorpha (ja:オオムカデ目) and Scutigeromorpha (ja:ゲジ目) in Japanese Wikipedia, and since other groups also have orders as separated articles, I think these orders should be split. Also there is extinct order Devonobiomorpha, however due to description in this page at Craterostigmomorpha it is hard to add that without repeating descriptions. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is plenty to create an article for the monotypic Devonobius / Devonobiidae / Devonobiomorpha with the type description and subsequent discussions of the taxa in the literature.--Kev min § 13:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping them together is more useful for readers, because it allows them to compare the characteristics of various orders, instead of hopping from stub to stub. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward-Woodrow That's what the parent taxon's article is for, though... —Snoteleks 🦠 19:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with splitting. Just because there's not enough content for each order yet doesn't mean there won't be. Each taxon should have its own page. They are order-level taxa, come on. They more than deserve separate articles. I'm sure there is a huge amount of info on each of the orders out there just waiting to be added to Wikipedia. —Snoteleks 🦠 14:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing... how does this article even exist? It's like having a classification/diversity section of Chilopoda split off from the original article. It's absurd and sets an arbitrary division on what taxa deserve their article based on a whim decision. —Snoteleks 🦠 15:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion may be of interest. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - there will be more than plenty of information to add, and I'd assume people are more likely to add it to standalone articles. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk Speaking from experience I agree, people are much more prone to add information to standalone articles. —Snoteleks 🦠 15:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's reasonable to have articles for each centipede order. Centipede#Internal phylogeny could be developed to allow readers to compare characteristics of various orders (perhaps with a table). As noted in the previous discussion, the title of this article is an outlier. Centipede classification (cf. Mammal classification) or Taxonomy of centipedes (cf. Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae) could be titles for an article that gives some detail on each of the orders, as well as material from the Internal phylogeny section (e.g., a cladogram). Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew A classification page could also allow us to fully display all the subfamilies and genera which is nice. —Snoteleks 🦠 19:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Plantdrew makes sense and permits greater inclusivity, might want to ensure there are well thought out short descriptions though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the rationales of Snoteleks, Plantdrew etc. and I will note the merge discussion was about shoehorning everything here into a LARGER article, and so not actually relevant here, if it had been about merge or split up, it would have been split already.--Kev min § 13:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think consensus is pretty clear. @Kevmin, Plantdrew, Snoteleks, and Ta-tea-two-te-to: is it okay if I close this as consensus to split and implement that? Thanks, Edward-Woodrow [ now Cremastra (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)][reply]

That'd be perfect. —Snoteleks (Talk) 11:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks: Done; and I've redirected this article to Centipede#Internal phylogeny. Cremastra (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]