Talk:Cladoselache

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sharks Low‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Note: The following was copied from WikiProject Palaeontology on 1 November 2014. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Proposal of merging the article concerning Cladoselache with Cladoselachidae

Hi, I do advocate convenience in the allocations of information, yet wouldn't support the merging of two pages, which do concern similar topics, yet regard two distinct taxonomic ranks. Now, one might say that such a standpoint is not tenable, due to the one page concerning a genus, and the other the family to which it belongs, but they are still two distinct taxonomic ranks and therefore merging the two would infer an insignificance of lower rank. --GaryGLouw 16:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryLouw19 (talk • contribs)

This discussion belongs on the talk page of one of the two articles in question, but the convention is to merge monotypic taxa. Since the family apparently contains mutiple genera, it would be best to have the family article present an overview of all genera, (shared features, temporal occurrence, etc), yielding to genera articles for specific details. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned above, merging should only be done when the family/subfamily/etc. taxon is monotypic. This one isn't. In fact, the opposite has to be done; creation of articles for the red linked genera. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The merge template was apparently added here by User:Panderichthys4144, with no comment, and the user account has since been blocked. I think we can effectively end the discussion as consensus to not merge. agreed?--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Merge tags removed. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic