Talk:Obdurodon tharalkooschild

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Obdurodon NT.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Although it was proposed in December 2018 that Obdurodon tharalkooschild should be merged into Obdurodon, no discussion was initiated.

• Oppose I oppose this merger as it is contrary to the general policy that allows a species to have its own page unless the genus is a monotypic taxon, which is not the case with Obdurodon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Cwmhiraeth. Species should only be merged with the genus if the genus is monotypic. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support I must say it is highly unusual for extinct species to have their own page instead of all of them being discussed in the genus article without good cause, such as Hyaenodon and Triceratops. If there is extensive research on individual species (such as with Mammuthus) then splitting makes sense, but splitting species articles on more obscure creatures would lead to a lot of unneeded repetition   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

In this case there are three species which each have their own decent-sized article, and why one of these should be merged into the genus article but not the other two is unclear. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been my experience that, if a species article is short enough, i.e., a stub-level article, it's usually merged into the genus article, even if a related species has a large separate article.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I say merge Obdurodon insignis, Obdurodon dicksoni, and Obdurodon tharalkooschild into Obdurodon. Each individual species is not notable/unique enough to merit its own separate article. I can merge them all if we come to that decision   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - a lot of Australian fossil species stubs have been mass created for what seems to be the sake of it, there is no justification and they should all be merged to the genus level. Again, it is generally agreed that prehistoric species should be covered at the genus level, unless they are particularly notable and a lot can be written about them, which is not the case here (or for most of them). FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth and Rlendog: do you still vote oppose?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• I do not want to stand in the way if there is a consensus to merge, but I think it is a pity in this instance, as each of the species articles is sufficient to stand alone in my opinion. What does Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs), who created the species articles, think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If anyone ever got Obdurodon to GA, the 3 species articles at GA would read exactly the same as the genus article except with some info related to the other 2 species cut out, but not a lot cut out for comparisons sake. That's far too much repeated info   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The species article is adequate for its own page, and there are multiple species in the genus. I am still not seeing a compelling reason to merge. Rlendog (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)