Talk:Euthema

Merge in species
Three species that should be merged in per WP:Palaeo guidelines on genus species redundancy in articles.-- Kev min  § 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, none of the species articles are detailed enough to warrant their own articles when WP:PALEO guidelines say to keep it at the genus article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to not make it look like I'm agreeing here. It makes no sense from the point of view of the general scientific standards. The guidelines of a "paleo" project are contradicts to the general rules and purposes of wikipedia, as well as to the common sense. Several dino loving amateurs made rules on how scientific palaeontological information should be presented, kind of funny. Species are the basic units in (paleo)biology, today they placed in this genus, tomorrow across several other, writing something general on the several species of one genus will not allow to properly split it later otherwise than writing it from the zero if it will be reconfigured (which will happen very often) and if there will be no species articles. In several years many of such genera-based palaeontological papers in wikipedia will be senseless and often misleading, some text that was referring to one group of species will be referring to other. Very harmful approach to say the least. --Igor Balashov (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merge, for reasons of short text, context and semiduplication; even the combined page will be short, suggesting that the division of content into multiple pages is unhelpful. Regarding semiduplication, Euthema already containts most of the content of the other 3 articles. The paleobiology MOS is entirely consistent with wikiproject standards. I'm not a dino loving amateur ... Klbrain (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting also the (likely) undeclared COI; an author producing multiple pages from their own work, and contested the removal of extensive duplication, is likely to be biased in their assessment. Klbrain (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)