Talk:Shastasauridae

	Shastasauridae 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
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.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Shonisauridae to either Shastasauridae or Shonisaurus. Klbrain (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk Should Shonisauridae be merged into Shastasauridae or Shonisaurus? Patachonica (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it shouldn't be an article. Hopefully someone more knowledgable will see this and determine it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it shouldn't be an article, then should it be discussed for deletion? Patachonica (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No clade that has been proposed should ever be deleted, they should always be redirected to whatever it is a junior synonym of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about Shonisauridae, not Shastasauridae; I forgot to mention Shonisauridae. Patachonica (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for any proposed clade. If it has never actually been proposed, that's another issue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shonisauridae has been used in very few (four) papers according to google scholar, which indicates that the clade may have been proposed before. Patachonica (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it should just be a redirect, if it isn't in use anymore. But to what, we'll have to see if someone else looks into it in more detail. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shonisauridae was apparently named by Camp in 1980. (I've never been able to find copies of Camp's Shonisaurus papers, but I'd guess the family was intended to be monotypic; can anyone confirm?) Maisch expanded the family in 2010 ([1]) to include Himalayasaurus and Guizhouichthyosaurus, the former of which is extremely fragmentary and the latter of which has never been supported as clading with Shonisaurus over other ichthyosaurs in any phylogenetic analysis I'm aware of. I don't think that anyone really followed the more detailed aspects of Maisch's classification scheme from that paper (though for a while nearly all ichthyosaur information on this wiki used it for reference for classification), so I definitely think that this article should be merged. I personally would lean more towards merging it into Shonisaurus, though I don't think that a merge to Shastasauridae would be bad either. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]