Talk:Stephanorhinus

Merge from species
has suggested the two species articles Stephanorhinus hemitoechus and Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis be merged here. When the duplicate information between the species and genus level articles are consolidated, there is not enough unique information at Stephanorhinus hemitoechus to warrant a stand alone article. The infromation at Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis is maybe an extra paragraph in Stephanorhinus and could be incorporated without any issues of page size.-- Kev min  § 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PALEO guidelines. It takes a truly well-studied and widely-known paleo species to warrant its own article; this two are not such. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per usual paleo-species de-fragmentation approach. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose As the steward and primary author of Stephanorhinus (86.5%) and Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis (~100%), if Igor Balashov gets to keep a two sentence stub on a fossil snail, then these articles deserve to be kept. Both of these species have had far more written about them than simply a technical description, and could easily be substantially expanded (which I will attempt to do in the future), beyond the scope of the Stephanorhinus article, and would likely be kept at AfD. We have an article for almost every species of Mammoth and dwarf elephant for fucks sake, why can't we keep these ones? If the articles are merged, I will delete all the content I have contributed to them (which is almost all of it), reducing the article to the state it was in in 2019 (see ). Thus rendering the merge pointless and leaving the article with far less content than before. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguing from a point of Ownership is not a strong position. Nearly all the other cases you mention can be merged as well, especially the stubby ones like the Euthema articles, which I have now tagged for merge. Threat of vandalism to the article by "removing your work" is actually considered a serious and sanctionable action, so you may want to reconsider your wording and threats.-- Kev  min  § 17:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism to remove content that you have added to the article. You clearly don't appreciate the work that I have put into both articles given your contemptuous additude. Give me a good reason why I shouldn't delete S. kirchbergensis right now per WP:G7. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is vandalism, and G:7 would not apply as you would not be doing so in good faith.-- Kev min  § 19:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm retiring from Wikipedia now, all thanks to you. If you hadn't been such a jerk maybe things would have been different. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support for Stephanorhinus hemitoechus, Oppose for Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis. The latter seems a much stronger article. The former I'm leaning towards a merge but it's borderline. I certainly don't think every species in the genus would merit it's own article. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I generally consider that Pleistocene species and genus of mammals are generally important enough to warrant an individual article. Obviously, I'm opposed to the creation of more articles about non-Pleistocene species of Stephanorhinus.Larrayal (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose for reasons above.Porqaz (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)