Talk:Timematidae

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Phasmatodea, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PhasmatodeaWikipedia:WikiProject PhasmatodeaTemplate:WikiProject PhasmatodeaPhasmatodea articles

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reverted article to Stub

I removed the redirect to timema and reverted it back to a stub, it shouldn't have been a redirect, it caused confusion on taxa boxes on other articles. Will be updating This article to improve it when I have time Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the prior redirect target was not (no longer?) suitable, it seems that Timematodea could be ok as a target? Depends on what you mean by taxa box confusion. Although if there's substantial information to be written about the topic in article form then it's a moot point and by all means expand the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by Taxa box confusion is that the page for timema listed timema as the genus then Timematidae as the as the family but then redirected you back to the same page. I do not think Timematodea would be good as a target either, as the spelling is so similar it may cause confusion as you may not realise you have been redirected. Currently I am collecting sources for this article before I start work on writing it. Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just reviewing the Timema article again there are some issues with the taxa box still, going to start a discussion there as well and figure out how to fix it haha Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it may be prone to confusion, although a saving grace of Timematodea is that there is a bolded mention of "Timematidae" in the middle of the stub, which would hopefully catch readers' attention. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a taxon is monotypic, such as Timematodea and its single family Timematidae, the policy is to have only one article. Yes, it is most common to have the higher-rank name redirect to the lower-rank name, but in this case it has a long history as having the family redirecting to the superfamily. Please adhere to policy, and keep the present structure intact. I have fixed the taxobox display so the family name now properly displays in bold, so there is no confusion that the two taxa are essentially identical. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my mistake, apologies for the uninformed edits. Could you please direct me to the policy/rules regarding taxa boxes please? Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]