This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
The contents of the Euthema annae page were merged into Euthema on 25 December 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Three species that should be merged in per WP:Palaeo guidelines on genus species redundancy in articles.--Kevmin§ 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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#Description 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)Reply
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)Reply
