Talk:Deltasaurus

Species
I probably should have discussed this before redirecting the species articles. Now I see the redirects have been undone. The reason for the redirects is because prehistoric species generally don't get their own articles, but rather are discussed in a "Species" section of the genus article. This is the case for nearly every species, and I don't think Deltasaurus should be an exception. I don't think there is enough information out there on each species that merits the species having their own articles. Additionally, the information in the species articles is already found in the genus article. I'd like to know why the redirects were undone, and discuss what should be done, since I still think the species should be redirected to the genus article. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "generally don't get their own articles" doesn't cut it with me. I see no reason why I should be constrained by others' lack of vision. Every species is notable. Every species merits its own article. We'll get there eventually, so long as we are permitted to start somewhere. Hesperian 04:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, prehistoric fossil species never get their own article. I said "generally" because there may be some exceptions I am unaware of. There has been a lot of debate on this issue, even quite recently; see here and here for some discussions. I suggest you read these to learn what many other editors think. The general consensus is that articles on prehistoric taxa, except subfossil or recently extinct taxa, stop at the genus level. Species are usually discussed in a "Species" section of the article, with species listed as subdivisions within the article's taxobox. If you still feel after reading these discussions that species merit their own articles, I suggest you bring this issue up on WikiProject Palaeontology's talk page rather than this article's talk page. Then we could see what other editors have to say. Smokeybjb (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Homo erectus. Hesperian 03:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you are using Homo erectus as an example to prove your point. Although it is a prehistoric species, it has existed relatively recently and because of its close relation to Homo sapiens, it has received a lot of attention in scientific literature. Because of this, there is so much information on this species (as well as others in the genus Homo) that it certainly requires its own article. Extinct hominids can be seen as an exception to the "rule" that articles on prehistoric taxa stop at the genus level. Again, you should bring this up at WikiProject Palaeontology's talk page rather than this talk page if we are to hear the opinions of other editors. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An example to prove my point? No, it was an example to refute your assertion that "prehistoric fossil species never get their own article." I've just been looking through the prehistoric animals category tree, and I see hundreds more articles on prehistoric species, very few of which are "extinct hominids". I don't think you know what you are talking about. Hesperian 06:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please give examples, because I don't believe there are hundreds. There are many articles on species from the Pleistocene epoch, such as those in the family Mammutidae, but I would consider those recent species (geologically speaking, of course). Notice that there are many species under the category Pleistocene mammals, while there few under the category Pliocene mammals (and most of these are hominids). In many cases, the information in species articles is nearly identical to the information in different species articles of the same genus, such as Borophagus. I've noticed that most of the articles on prehistoric species are on Cenozoic mammals. This is interesting because, for non-mammalian taxa, articles almost always stop at the genus level. Perhaps the consensus reached between editors of articles on non-mammalian prehistoric taxa is not shared with editors of articles on mammalian prehistoric taxa. I think that there should be a discussion between these two groups of editors to reach an overall consensus on what should be done. I'm going to bring this issue over to WikiProject Palaeontology's talk page, just so we can hear what others have to say, rather than just you and me. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are able to reconcile "prehistoric fossil species never get their own article." with "There are many articles on species from the Pleistocene epoch" without suffering cognitive dissonance. Good for you. If you would care to clarify these contradictions with a fresh, clear statement of your position, I will again consider whether or not your position is refutable; and if so, give counter-examples. Hesperian 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you got me there. At first I didn't really realize the amount of species-level articles on Pleistocene taxa, but now I see there are quite a few. That is not to say I think they all should have their own articles; there are some, such as the species of Castoroides, that I feel would be better off being described in the genus article. If you want a clear statement (sorry I couldn't give one before) it would be the following:

Prehistoric species do not merit their own articles, but rather are discussed in their respective genus articles, unless: This is what I think is best, but it's by no means a final statement of what the consensus is. I advise you to leave comments on WikiProject Palaeontology's talk page to join the discussion that I have recently started on this issue. That way you can hear what other editors think, while also sharing with them what you think. That way we can reach a new agreement, if necessary.
 * There has been a vast amount of research and attention in scientific literature to provide enough information for a separate article (exactly how much information is open to debate, but it is expected to be a very large amount).
 * The individual species is well known to laypeople and is likely to be of more interest than the genus (think Mammuthus primigenius or Homo neanderthalensis).
 * The species is a subfossil or a recently extinct taxon (going extinct sometime during the Holocene).
 * The species belongs to a genus that is still extant (such as Alligator, which the prehistoric species Alligator prenasalis belongs to). In this case, the extant species have their own articles, so the article on the genus should not discuss only the prehistoric species in a species section, as they for extinct genera.

And if you want counter-examples, look at all articles on dinosaurs, pterosaurs, prehistoric crurotarsans, non-mammalian synapsids, sauropterygians, parareptiles, reptiliomorphs, temnospondyls (other than Deltasaurus), lepospondyls, stem tetrapods, etc. Those are the ones I am immediately aware of. Smokeybjb (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that what you have written above is essentially a notability policy; and one that runs counter to the actual notability policy, which is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Hesperian 04:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The keyword here is "presumed". If you read Notability, it clearly says that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". It also clearly says that editors may reach a consensus that some topics are not appropriate for stand-alone articles. Most paleontology editors have reached the consensus that prehistoric species are not appropriate for stand-alone articles if they do not meet any of the exceptions that I have listed above. Therefore, what I have written is by no means contradictory to notability policy. Smokeybjb (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to those of us with an interest in palaeontology getting together and formulating a notability guideline; but I do object to the application of a guideline that does not exist. I guess you would consider turning your point of view into an endorsed notability guideline a much grander outcome than merely getting your way on these two species articles. Off you go then. Hesperian 05:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with the formulation of a notability guideline for paleontology articles; that is why I brought the issue up at WikiProject Palaeontology's talk page. If you provide some of your input on that talk page, then maybe we can start to formulate such a guideline. I don't think that it should be up to the individual editor to decide if a taxon is notable enough to have its own article. That's what it has been like up until now, and you can see that this has caused conflicting views. This reoccurring issue will finally be settled once and for all if we create an official standard for paleontology article notability. Once again, please leave comments on WikiProject Palaeontology's talk page rather than here if we are to get anywhere with this. Smokeybjb (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Carnian Age
The reference to Deltasaurus being Carnian in age appears to be a mistake. Neither the Blina Shale nor the Knocklofty Formation are Carnian (they're both Early Triassic), and every reference to Deltasaurus I can find places it in the Early Triassic. Troodon311 (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)