Talk:Haplomastodon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haplomastodon redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mammals

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles

Palaeontology

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

Leaving a former article stub

Dear all,

I have left a stub to allow anyone still interested in Haplomastodon to view the information and the relevant citations for themselves.

SuperTah (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted anyway

There is no reason for this article to exist, all the citations for this article are already linked in the Notiomastodon article. Furthermore, unlike something like brontosaurus, this article has no notability, and only serves to confuse people. As far as I am aware, there are no other articles like this on wikipedia, where a full article is linked behind a redirect and is probably in violation of the Wikipedia:Redirects policy --Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not an option

It may well be that Haplomastodon and Notiomastodon are (now) considered synonymous. But the way to treat that, is incorporating the information from this article in that of Notiomastodon. "Just delete, only serves to """confuse""" people" is both not a scientific way of working and destroying relevant information that would be lost with this sudden undiscussed redirect. Sources for the use of Haplomastodon: 2016!, 2011, 2010, 2010.

In the 2016 article it says Stegomastodon = Notiomastodon = Haplomastodon (page 2) is specifically named. It might be that all three are synonymous, but then that needs to be well referenced in the article AND all information from both Stego and Haplo included in the article of Notiomastodon. the source for this rearrangement seems to be this short article: Mothé, D.; Avilla, L.; Cozzuol, M.A. & Winck, G.R. (2012). "Taxonomic revision of the Quaternary gomphotheres (Mammalia: Proboscidea: Gomphotheriidae) from the South American lowlands". Quaternary International. 276–277: 2–7.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

Rework and include, this sudden deletion is not the solution. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Tisquesusa is correct. A simple delete is not correct in this instance. The correct course of action would be a merge. Perhaps of the third article as well. I don't know enough about the subject to suggest it myself, but if indeed there is enough credible sourcing to indicate that all 3 are the same animal, than the most common name should be kept and the other two should be merged into that. But as I said, I don't know enough about the subject, someone who does should suggest a merge using the {{mergeto}} tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onel, two other observations; the publication mentioned above, that deals with the reassignment into Notiomastodon is not even linked in the Notiomastodon article. Second, if indeed the three genera are now part of 1, the correct naming should be Stegomastodon, as that genus was described in 1912 and Notiomastodon in 1929. With drastic changes like this, there should be first a discussion started where various contributors have a say and references should be provided as support for choice A or B. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion here to get input from colleagues on this topic. Imho this should have been done from the start and in any case the articles should be expanded with much more information, including this debate that appears to be going on. Not just delete as it "confuses" people, the deletion of information confuses people much more, especially because no effort has been done to solve the wikilinks. I write about Stegomastodon and Haplomastodon that were found in different areas in Colombia, and they link now to Notiomastodon where there's no mention of those fossils. Not the way it should be done. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to assume that article is correct? remember tigers and lions are very similar once the skin is removed.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheDarkMaster2 Haplomastodon isn't distinguishable from the morphologically variable Notiomastodon which is agreed upon by all current workers, even those who think that Notiomastodon is a species of Stegomastodon, it should definitely be merged, it wasn't done last time due to Tisquesusa's opposition. You should probably read this old archive discussion on the topic to get up to speed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so are we merging all three gophotheres? Stegomastodon seems to still be distinct from the other two — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkMaster2 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Stegomastodon and Notiomastodon should be kept separate, sorry for the confusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]