Talk:Sympetrum

Tables

@Kevmin Please provide documentation to support your claim that the tables provide no benefit. The tables are beneficial as they provide brief information (female/male morphology, distribution) on the sub categories such as species for genus page.

Page with tables added have became featured articles such as: Pelican, Tern, Giraffe, Zebra.
Other wikipedia pages have species list in tables with some five years old over a decade old. This includes pages I have added with no objections other than format for over 5 years
Pages in the Same family have tables added with no objections for 1-3 years including Libellula,Tholymis, Brachythemis, Diastatops

--Cs california (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussions we have has at Sequoia and other plant genus articles. The tables do not provide any benefit, are defaulted to closed in mobile view, and image heavy for no reason.--Kev min § 22:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you habitually add unsourced information (eg ranges) that have no backing citation. If you are going to add data it must be cited and it ranges should not use political boundaries. Being a featured article such as Zebra, the tables are well referenced, and have prose sections that detail the information presented in each cell were appropriate.--Kev min § 23:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin There is nothing much information supporting your arguments on the Talk:Sequoia (genus) page all you mention was sourcing I was not even done with edits. If the sourcing was an issue you could have just added an {{Unreferenced}} that does not justify reverting the page. I can access the tables fine in mobile and multiple images are not a big problem, especially when short video clips and hi-res panoramic images are hosted on wikipedia articles.

The content should not have been removed per Wikipedia:Content removal:

"Unless it is clearly a blatant hoax, good faith shall be assumed and no action taken against the editor who added it"

Are you claiming that I am providing inaccurate information or not editing in good faith?--Cs california (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the information on the sequoia page. After you blanked the page I messaged you to incorporate it into the page in another format "If you think a wikitable is a poor way of representing the information for fossils please incorporate the information such as the location and the authority in another format instead of blanking the section because you don`t like it. --Cs california (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)"

All the information in the table had names and authorities and can be easily search, that is better than the amount of references under the list of species in the infobox. But you did nothing incorporate them. --Cs california (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]