Talk:Plesiosaur
not merge[change source]
We don't merge from a high-rank taxon to a low-rank taxon. This page is entirely about the Plesiosauria as a whole; Plesiosaurus is just one genus amongst many. In this wiki and all others there are separate pages for higher ranked groups. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine, on the face of it, Plesiosaurus had the same info as Plesiosaur hence my request. I was looking for info on the Plesiosaurus and was confused to find it in two places. It seems to me though (but I know next to nothing about the subject) that the links to en: wp are not the same as the pagename: this page links to Plesiosauria? Should we rename it here? Deadstar (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Though many pages are based on enWP articles, we are a separate wiki, and do some things differently. For example, our titles are not always the same. Here, in biology, the higher taxa tend to be under the root, say 'Plesiosaur', because that can be used to cover several taxic levels above genera. enWP has Plesiosaurus, Plesiosaurinae, Plesiosauridae, Plesiosauroidea and Plesiosauria. In their case, 'Plesiosaur' is linked by redirect to the superfamily Plesiosauroidea. We are never going to have their coverage of taxonomic details because a) our regular editors are few, b) our readership is much fewer, and c) the readership generally doesn't need it. I may make a few changes to the intro to avoid confusion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Deadstar (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Though many pages are based on enWP articles, we are a separate wiki, and do some things differently. For example, our titles are not always the same. Here, in biology, the higher taxa tend to be under the root, say 'Plesiosaur', because that can be used to cover several taxic levels above genera. enWP has Plesiosaurus, Plesiosaurinae, Plesiosauridae, Plesiosauroidea and Plesiosauria. In their case, 'Plesiosaur' is linked by redirect to the superfamily Plesiosauroidea. We are never going to have their coverage of taxonomic details because a) our regular editors are few, b) our readership is much fewer, and c) the readership generally doesn't need it. I may make a few changes to the intro to avoid confusion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)