The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red-knobbed[edit]

Red-knobbed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 20#
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A part heading; see WP:PTM and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange-breasted. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. —Snowman (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Snowman (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also part headings: Snowman (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related pages[edit]

Votes and comments[edit]

  • What is a "Red-knobbed" then? I would say that there is no such thing. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all partial headings, and they should all be removed to upheld WP:PTM. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because a rule exists, doesn't mean it's a good idea to enforce it every time. We're supposed to use our judgment.—S Marshall T/C 19:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have used their judgement and there have been consensuses to delete lots of these type of partial heading dabs:
  • I see quite a few users opining that the search box results are sufficient. I don't agree, and I challenge their reasoning. A disambiguation page may be preferable because over and above Wikipedia's results, it can also include helpful "see also" sections as well as relevant links to Wiktionary and other Wikimedia Foundation projects.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not stand up to a simple test of doing a wiki search and comparing the result with what is on a part-name dab. Searching for "Red-bellied" returns scores of results, and seems far superior to viewing the short list on the part-name dab. It is possible that a user looking at the part-name dab would think that the creature he was interesting in was not on the wiki because of the inadequate listing there. Clearly these-part name dabs can interfere with a wiki search and should be deleted. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several responses to that. First, Wikipedia is not wiki. Second, your reply implies that seeing "scores of results" is a good thing, and I don't think it is. A searcher should ideally receive small number of relevant choices, not a large number of text matches. Third, those choices might need to include things from Mediawiki projects that aren't actually part of Wikipedia (e.g. from Wiktionary or Wikispecies) and would therefore not be revealed in a Wikipedia search. Clearly these part-name dabs are an improvement on a Wikipedia search and should be retained.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the exceptions you have listed nor what changes your are suggesting for them. There is no such thing as a "Blue-tongued". Using "Blue-tongued" as an example, what amendments are you suggesting for this dab. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Blue-tongued to Blue-tongued lizard, (which is currently a redirect but can be turned into a disambiguation page, or we delete blue tongued and change the redirect, whatever works, not the best example as it turns out), as all articles listed there are about lizards, and could easily be confused with each other. same with the others i have listed. the article would read, "Blue-tongued lizard may refer to one of the following species of lizards: (list all 3)."(N.B.: i have substantially reedited my messages here, so if Snowmans query seems to be answered by the comment he is referring to, thats me messing with my content. his query was perfectly reasonable when first made, as i was very unclear)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for clarification of your initial comment and I note that you have re-written that initial comment. However, in the case of blue-tongue, there is an article "Blue-tongued skink", which are also called "Blue-tongued lizards" in Australia. Currently "Blue-tongued lizard" is a valid redirect to Blue-tongued skink. Perhaps you have targeted others part-name dabs like this, where a genus page with a species listing would suffice. Similarly, the genus page Lonchorhina has a satisfactory listing for Sword-nosed bats, making the part-name dab Sword-nosed redundant. There would be justification for making "Sword-nosed bat" a redirect to Lonchorhina and no grounds for moving it to a dab for Sword-nosed bat; nevertheless, this does not affect my nomination for Sword-nosed to be deleted. I think you need to reconsider your flawed plan of renaming part-name dabs with a complete name, because genus pages have listings of the similarly named creatures that appear on some of the part-name dabs. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have just made Sword-nosed bat a redirect to Lonchorhina. You could probably do this for some of the other creatures listing on part-name dabs. I think that these possibilities enhance my nomination for part-name dab deletion. In some cases I think that moving part-name dabs to full name dabs will interfere with the redirects to genus listings. It seems to me that some of these appropriate re-directs do not exist at present. I think that user Mercurywoodrose has stumbled on examples where it would be possible to make a redirect to a genus page, and I see no reason why these appropriate redirects should not be created. None of this should interfere or complicate deletion of the part-name dabs. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaf-tail Gecko (also called Leaf-tailed Gecko) is mentioned above. These are best redirected to Uroplatus, where numerous leaf-tailed geckos are listed. Would User Mercurywoodrose like to make this new redirect and see how many other new redirects can be made? I would be happy to make the new redirect from Leaf-tailed Gecko to Uroplatus. Making these sort of new redirects is independent of my nomination to delete Leaf-tailed and the other part-name dabs. Where there is a possibility of making a new redirect using full-name dab to a genus page seems to me to emphasise the redundancy of part-name dabs. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are correct about genus pages listing species names (which is suspect you are), and that redirects are better in this case than a disambig page (which i like better as well), then i utterly agree with you. Unless someone else has some reason not to do so, i support your goal of deleting the partial name dabs, and then, separately, creating redirects for any of the indivicual species names found in them. the latter is simply an ongoing project entirely separate from your proposed deletion, and can happen in its own time frame. the part names must go, though, one way or another. I probably wont have time or energy to work on those redirects, though. so, i Withdraw my vote to delete a subset of the pages listed, and vote to Delete all per nom, etc. good work, thanks for helping educate me (and all of us).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More