Talk:Obdurodon tharalkooschild

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Obdurodon NT.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Obdurodon tharalkooschild, Obdurodon insignis, Obdurodon dicksoni into Obdurodon on the grounds that all three criteria for a merge at the relevant project guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Which articles should be created have been met during the discussion: overlap, not much can be written on the species, and befit from the context of the broader (genus) article. Klbrain (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Although it was proposed in December 2018 that Obdurodon tharalkooschild should be merged into Obdurodon, no discussion was initiated.

• Oppose I oppose this merger as it is contrary to the general policy that allows a species to have its own page unless the genus is a monotypic taxon, which is not the case with Obdurodon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Cwmhiraeth. Species should only be merged with the genus if the genus is monotypic. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support I must say it is highly unusual for extinct species to have their own page instead of all of them being discussed in the genus article without good cause, such as Hyaenodon and Triceratops. If there is extensive research on individual species (such as with Mammuthus) then splitting makes sense, but splitting species articles on more obscure creatures would lead to a lot of unneeded repetition   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

In this case there are three species which each have their own decent-sized article, and why one of these should be merged into the genus article but not the other two is unclear. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been my experience that, if a species article is short enough, i.e., a stub-level article, it's usually merged into the genus article, even if a related species has a large separate article.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I say merge Obdurodon insignis, Obdurodon dicksoni, and Obdurodon tharalkooschild into Obdurodon. Each individual species is not notable/unique enough to merit its own separate article. I can merge them all if we come to that decision   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - a lot of Australian fossil species stubs have been mass created for what seems to be the sake of it, there is no justification and they should all be merged to the genus level. Again, it is generally agreed that prehistoric species should be covered at the genus level, unless they are particularly notable and a lot can be written about them, which is not the case here (or for most of them). FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth and Rlendog: do you still vote oppose?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• I do not want to stand in the way if there is a consensus to merge, but I think it is a pity in this instance, as each of the species articles is sufficient to stand alone in my opinion. What does Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs), who created the species articles, think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If anyone ever got Obdurodon to GA, the 3 species articles at GA would read exactly the same as the genus article except with some info related to the other 2 species cut out, but not a lot cut out for comparisons sake. That's far too much repeated info   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The species article is adequate for its own page, and there are multiple species in the genus. I am still not seeing a compelling reason to merge. Rlendog (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, cheers for notice. I am opposed to the merge, having raised this discussion at the relevant projects. ~ cygnis insignis 05:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• … oppose [converted to !vote for clarity, merge up comment 13:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)]

Comment These articles were named in a discussion on the paleontology subproject Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_12#Guidelines_on_article_creation. Development of species articles that are within the subproject's scope have been subject 'merging' or deletion citing those guidelines, often without discussion and in the midst of improvement and expansion … pertinent example Don't split off short species articles from prehistoric genera, per paleo project guidelines. That is where I was up to when I found something else to do, making a start, but thanks for the GA reviews :/ ~ cygnis insignis 05:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support merge of current article and other species articles for this genus. As with all such discussions, it is worth looking at just what proportion of content in the article is really appropriate for a species-level article (and, indeed, what proportion of it is even correct).

Taxonomy: Largely fine. The discussion of size is not appropriate for this section.

Description: This section is problematic in that it is sourced almost entirely to a news article. I will proceed to go through it (largely) sentence-by-sentence.

• "An ornithorhynchid-like monotreme... one metre long": Issues right off the bat. It is an ornithorhynchid, not just ornithorhynchid-like. The popular source makes the inference that the animal was 1 m long. The paper makes no such claim, only indicating that it likely exceeded Monotrematum (70 cm) in size. Content-wise, however, so far so good, if not a bit general.
• "The species... Miocene (5–15 million years ago)": This does not belong here. It belongs in a discussion of the type locality under Taxonomy (or Discovery and naming in other palaeontology articles). There is no mention of the fact that the locality may be Pliocene. This discussion also applies equally to O. dicksoni specimens from Faunal Zone C sites at Riversleigh, not just O. tharalkooschild.
• "The wear patterns... using a shearing action": While this is indeed true, the article does not mention the fact that the presence of only one posterolingual cusp is a distinguishing characteristic of O. tharalkooschild from other species. This is where the article fails as a species article: a species article should make an attempt to meaningfully distinguish the species from others in the genus.
• "Obdurodon tharalkooschild... one metre long": This sentence is a repeat. It adds absolutely nothing new.
• "Obdurodon tharalkooschild... due to its greater size": Except for the "fresh water" comment, these sentences are also redundant. They include the third mention of O. tharalkooschild's diet, and even a WP:OR inference (NOT present in the source press release) that "larger species were available due to its greater size".
• "The potential prey... the Riversleigh formations": The fourth mention of its diet! The comments about contemporaneous fauna belong in a general discussion of palaeoecology, and I would not be surprised if there is substantial overlap with the contemporaries of O. dickinsoni from Faunal Zone C sites.
• "The ornithorhynchid species... became smaller in size": First, this belongs in a general discussion of ornithorhynchid evolution over time, which certainly is more appropriate for the genus article where all three can be placed into context. Additionally, although (possibly, depending on the dating of the Two Trees site) true, the comment that "ornithorhynchid species were unknown in the later fossil record" is WP:OR again.

Cultural references: This section baffles me. I cannot access Archer (1990) to verify its contents, but it almost certainly does not pertain to a species before its holotype has even been discovered. If the name was influenced by this paper (which there is no indication of), this information should go in Taxonomy. Otherwise, it is just trivia collecting dust. Currie (2018) is more reasonable but I am not entirely convinced of its notability either.

The other two species articles are less problematic.

• O. dicksoni includes a more extended comparison with the modern platypus, but I think much of the same applies to the genus as well. The last paragraph about the illustration is trivia and unnecessary.
• O. insignis still does not include a very good differential comparison, and the Discovery section is probably unnecessary. However, it cites the paper Musser & Archer (1998), which as far as I can tell includes a good comparison between O. dicksoni, O. insignis, and the modern platypus. Having this content in both species articles introduces a content fork, so I would again argue for those articles to be merged into the genus article as well.

Considering the genus article, the first paragraph in Taxonomy duplicates information in O. insignis. The second paragraph applies to all three species. The final list is unnecessary once the species articles have been merged. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• I certainly agree that if the presence of only one posterolingual cusp is a distinguishing characteristic of O. tharalkooschild that should be mentioned prominently in this article. But that is an editing concern, not a reason to merge. The fact that there are characteristics of this species that are not common to all Obdurodon species is precisely why merging to the genus article is suboptimal. Rlendog (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Cygnis insignis: In the Cultural reference section, "...detailing a creation story with an Ugly Duckling motif in the context of palaeontology" is already talked about in the Taxonomy section with the duck Tharalkoo and so is redundant and can be deleted. The platyzilla thing is not notable, so the entire section can be scrapped. "The species was estimated to have been present in the middle and upper Miocene (5–15 million years ago)" should be attached to the Riversleigh site as "the middle- to upper- Riversleigh site" because then it would imply we directly dated the bones. And, as Lythronaxargestes pointed out, diet is all over the place. So, that's why I did this. Regardless of the merge, I would've done that. What's the rationale in reverting it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, what's the rationale in this? The article was overly complex and wordy with sentences like "The septomaxilla (a part of the upper jawbone) of O. dicksoni is bigger than for the platypus, which supposes a hypertrophied beak" which just means "the bill was bigger than that of the platypus". Why do we need to mention Jeanette Muirhead's depiction of it in a magazine?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The genus Obdurodon is known from only 6 specimens, 5 of which are individual isolated teeth. This is clearly not well-known enough to split off the 3 species into their own articles. Other than what's here, anything inferred about O. tharalkooschild will likely be drawn from the more complete remains of O. dicksoni, leading to the same info repeated almost exactly across 3 articles. I'm sure there're some examples of this happening with other genus and species articles, and I'd also say to merge those   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

citations for that series of assertions pls ~ cygnis insignis 14:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.