| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Europolemur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed merger edit
If there are 3 species of this fossil genus, then I suggest not merging the articles. I'm sure there's enough information available about each species to merit their own article. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Being Eocene species the likelihood of the differences being more then small morphological details or geographic distribution details. The species level articles will likely be quite redundant with each other and the genus level article. See how the species were handled for Palaeovespa. --Kevmin § 18:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on how much information is out there, regardless of how technical. I've seen Ucucha write modestly sized articles about fossil taxa known from only a single tooth. An example is Ambondro mahabo (based on a jaw fragment). Granted, in this case the genus is monotypic, but it goes to show that quite a bit of detail can be squeezed out of the literature if we look hard enough. As for this genus, Google Scholar pulls up one to three pages of academic articles per species, which suggests to me that there's probably enough to merit articles for each, even if they are a bit technical. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Im not sure the Ambondro article works as a counter example due specifically to its monotypic nature. This is why I linked the Palaeovespa article. The major differences between the numerous species are small physical characters and location. If I had created articles for each, they would have been mostly duplicates of each other. As it stands now the only difference between Europolemur and E. klatti is the opening sentence. If a section on one of the species gets too large it could always be split out.--Kevmin § 23:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you could merge until someone gets around to writing the genus article, and then if separate species articles are needed, they can create them. It all depends on whether you're a lumper or a splitter. Personally, I'm a splitter. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Im not sure the Ambondro article works as a counter example due specifically to its monotypic nature. This is why I linked the Palaeovespa article. The major differences between the numerous species are small physical characters and location. If I had created articles for each, they would have been mostly duplicates of each other. As it stands now the only difference between Europolemur and E. klatti is the opening sentence. If a section on one of the species gets too large it could always be split out.--Kevmin § 23:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on how much information is out there, regardless of how technical. I've seen Ucucha write modestly sized articles about fossil taxa known from only a single tooth. An example is Ambondro mahabo (based on a jaw fragment). Granted, in this case the genus is monotypic, but it goes to show that quite a bit of detail can be squeezed out of the literature if we look hard enough. As for this genus, Google Scholar pulls up one to three pages of academic articles per species, which suggests to me that there's probably enough to merit articles for each, even if they are a bit technical. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)