Talk:Bolyeriidae

Is it a stub? Which?

Funny that this looks like an edit war, even though the reversion was by the same user who introduced it. A pity 52736941 didn't write edit summaries.

Anyway, Phlebas, I'm happy that you as a biologist take the time to participate. When you wrote "sorry SebastianHelm, but I feel it's a biosci-stub (it's a family of snakes)", did you mean that biosci-stub fits better than animal-stub (which is what I proposed)? Why? It seems to me that biosci-stub is meant for biological articles that are not specific to zoology or botany. (Unfortunately, this is not explained in [[Category:Biology_stubs]] (Heck, I can't even link to that page!).)

Another question is if this article is indeed a stub. I'm not a biologist, so I don't know how much we know about Bolyeriidae. Since they only contain two extinct species, my impression was that this article was relatively complete. In your opinion, what would be necessary for this article to shed its stub skin?
Sebastian 19:42, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I am not a snake specialist. It's the first time I ever heard about Bolyeriidae. You are right by saying biosci-stub is for non-animal - non-botany articles, or in other words for general biology. If you take a look at the biology stubs indeed, there are no systematical articles included.

On the other hand, systematical zoology articles should not be tagged with {{animal-stub}}, because it deals about groups of animals. Let's say Vertebrata is still a stub. It deals about animals, but because of its scope, it ought to be a biosci stub. Treating all organism groups as biosci is consequential. In the Henophidia article, for instance, it should get mentioned someday what characterizes this group (their synapomorphies). This is something only a systematist can do or a dedicated amateur. It may sound elitist, but leave animal articles to the amateurs, and attract professionals with {{biosci-stub}}. Or better yet, a systematics stub should be made or change {{animal-stub}} to {{zoology-stub}}, to be more inclusive.

I was a little irritated by the way all the Henophidia articles were written, that's why I changed them to biosci. I wrote a short stub about Loxocemus bicolor and look, it's an animal stub (and a biosci one, haha). But I don't want an edit war for such a futility, so it really doesn't matter now I've said my opinion, but leave this and all other Henophidia articles (except Boidae) a stub.

Really, they are far from finished. Characteristics/are there fossils found/Why the hell do they only live(d) on a tiny island/Systematical relationships etc. And besides, who says the information is correct at this time?

Are both Extinct?

Phlebas, why did you (@ 18:06, 2005 Feb 16) delete the genus name Bolyeria from the second paragraph? This paragraph now sounds as if both genera were extinct.
Sebastian 22:04, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

(small note: scientific names in italic, even if there is no English equivalent). I was a little to fast because I can't read incoherent texts. Phlebas 15:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

continued at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Stubs

Hi Sebastian. I asked about our disagreement on Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Stubs, requesting a zoology-stub.

Critically endangered?

Do you think that the status bar should be changed from Critically Endangered to something else? It says in the article that the species is believed to be extinct. ~Shippinator Mandy ^{(For best results, use twice daily.)}