Talk:History of zoology

Notability

@Elmidae: Is this topic notable? Paradoctor (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course. And to forestall the false conclusion I see coming up, that does not mandate a separate article if it is usefully treated in the context of another topic. But even that isn't the point here - the point is that we do not just duplicate the full content of a section as an article, especially if that section clearly functions, and needs to remain in place, as a summary of existing material (the x-1859 article and the 1859+ article). If you want to split this out (which I would consider unnecessary verging on counterproductive), there will have to be a deal more rearrangement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

needs to remain in place Who or what says or implies that it can't? Paradoctor (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

...because we don't double up material? Let alone two pages worth of material. Sorry, that seems a very basic thing to have to point out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

don't double up material Is that policy? WP:PARTRANS should be of interest here.

Aside from that, what makes you believe that WP:WIP does not apply to this article? Paradoctor (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's one of the prime reasons for merging articles (see WP:DUP), so yes, it is policy. And what you were doing is not partial transclusion but all-out duplication of a large section. Also, "work in progress" is not an excuse (nor has it ever been) for hasty bad actions without preparation and discussion. - Look, I'm a little put out by having to explain the very basics here. Consider this as currently opposed, and I invite you to get more people in to add their perspective, e.g. by leaving a note at WP:WikiProject History and/or WP:WikiProject Tree of Life. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)