Talk:Rebbachisauridae

Merge proposals for Khebbashia and Rebbachisaurinae

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.

The result of this discussion was uniform support for the merges to proceed. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Support: Per the discussion at WT:DINO, in an attempt to streamline the organization of higher-order clades, these merges are proposed for the following reasons:

1. The articles to be merged are stubs.
2. The articles to be merged are node-based clades with very little independent content that could be added in the foreseeable future to expand them. (WP:N)
3. All of the information in these two articles are relevant to discussion of rebbachisaurid classification, which is already covered by the article Rebbachisauridae. (WP:REDUNDANT)
4. "Rebbachisauridae" has over 450 results on google scholar vs only 11 for "Khebbashia" and 22 for "Rebbachisaurinae". In fact, a search for "Rebbachisaurinae" will return, "Did you mean 'Rebbachisauridae'?". (WP:N)
5. Similar sub-family-level taxa with low species counts already exist as solo articles (i.e. Pachycephalosauria, Heterodontosauridae, Megalosauridae, Alvarezsauridae, Oviraptoridae, etc.), and this merge would improve article format consistency for WP:DINO.

A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per comments at WT:DINO. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the above. Not much sense in having them all separate in their current states. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2024 (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.