Talk:Dolichorhynchops herschelensis

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

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

• Herschelensismural.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Although it was proposed in February 2019 that Dolichorhynchops herschelensis should be merged into Dolichorhynchops, 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 Dolichorhynchops. This article is a substantial, start class article and I think should remain unmerged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support while it is standard for living species to have their own article, there has to be a sizable amount of species-specific content to warrant a split from the genus article for extinct creatures since there is, in general, not too much species-specific information out there. With the amount of content available for Dolichorhynchops, a split is not warranted here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A substantial amount of the info on the article as it stands pertains to this species; while i can see Dunkleosteus77's point, I disagree that this article needs to be merged. Tknifton (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Changed to Support based on the below comments. Tknifton (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Tknifton (talk · contribs) Not really, Description and Diet would be duplicates with the other species, Habitat more or less the same, Historical range and Age are duplicates of each other, the Age section can shortened to a sentence, you don't need Related species, and Discovery is already well summed up in the genus article. I would not consider this "a substantial amount"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - not only per paleo project guidelines, but most of the info here applies to the genus as a whole, so it is basically duplication. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The species-specific information in this article probably amounts to less than three paragraphs combined. No effort is made to distinguish this species from other members of the genus. Also, very few references are present. I do not see any reason to keep this article around; it should be merged. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)