The contents of the Desmatochelys padillai page were merged into Desmatochelys on 29 December 2021 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Desmatochelys padillai is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
This redirect 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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Turtles, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject TurtlesTurtles articles
@FunkMonk:, re your comment in the last edit; I would say it's better to keep the species level entries, obviously with the need for filling the red link for D. lowi and the need to expand the genus level article, but New Zealand and central Colombia are (and were, back in the Cretaceous) so far apart, with until today no fossil finds in between, that it is important to highlight those different species of turtles. The genus level article should reflect the differences and similarities between the two described species. Tisquesusa (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be irrelevant how far apart two taxa lived, what matters is how much can be written about them. In the majority of cases, prehistoric species are better off being treated in the same genus article, since so little can be written about them (due to lack of knowledge). This has been the standard at the palaeontology project and the dinosaur project before it. There are some exceptions, such as woolly mammoth, but they are of course much more famous, with entire books written about just them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems appropriate; this paleo-species article is less of a stubby non-necessity than most similar cases, but the material would still be more useful in the genus article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
