Talk:Lithornis
References
[edit]There are multiple references to Lithornis on other pages, to which this page is linked. I have begun adding information and references to this page.Jbrougham (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Useless species stubs
[edit]They should all be re-merged into the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree, rather than merged and genericized into one article they should be expanded and diversified. Unfortunately, my focus drifted with my studies, but others could pick up the torch. The information is there. speednat (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is little to no information on the individual species that doesn't apply to the entire genus, so they will always remain stubs or very short. Details like bone measurements and stratigraphy can only take you so far, and does not make a viable article. Most other articles about species that have been extinct for millions of years are restricted to the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was getting confused with another genus. This genus, as you said, is probably destined for stubs or at best starts. However, I tend to like having the individual articles over the merge. But on this particular genus don't care enough to be a stick in the mud. speednat (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:palaeontology has maintained a policy of keeping species descriptions to genus articles for fossil taxa due to the very problems outlined by Funkmonk. With rare exceptions any species from the Miocene or older will most likely not have enough information distinct from a genus description to warrant a separate article. Take a look at the FA articles on Dinosaur genera for example. I nominate merging the substubs into this article.--Kevmin § 03:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Should we go ahead and merge? FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Yes, I think we should, We just need an admin to merge the page histories I think. Maybe @Peter coxhead:? --Kevmin § 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, not an admin. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think we need an admin, we just need to make sure any unique information in the species articles is moved to the genus article. Then we just redirect them. FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, not an admin. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: Yes, I think we should, We just need an admin to merge the page histories I think. Maybe @Peter coxhead:? --Kevmin § 00:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Should we go ahead and merge? FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:palaeontology has maintained a policy of keeping species descriptions to genus articles for fossil taxa due to the very problems outlined by Funkmonk. With rare exceptions any species from the Miocene or older will most likely not have enough information distinct from a genus description to warrant a separate article. Take a look at the FA articles on Dinosaur genera for example. I nominate merging the substubs into this article.--Kevmin § 03:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was getting confused with another genus. This genus, as you said, is probably destined for stubs or at best starts. However, I tend to like having the individual articles over the merge. But on this particular genus don't care enough to be a stick in the mud. speednat (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is little to no information on the individual species that doesn't apply to the entire genus, so they will always remain stubs or very short. Details like bone measurements and stratigraphy can only take you so far, and does not make a viable article. Most other articles about species that have been extinct for millions of years are restricted to the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have merged the last three stubs in and redirected them.--Kevmin §
- Good job! FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)