Talk:Narrow-nosed rhinoceros

Mammals Mid‑importance

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

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 3 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved at this time - As a NEO my interpretation of WP:PALEO suggests that a merge of the two Stephanorhinus articles is the consensus alternative here. It is my suggestion to editors working on this topic to work through and resolve the merge discussion at talk:Stephanorhinus before considering whether renaming this article is necessary. Additionally, if it hasn’t been done already, get the WP:PALEO project involved in the discussion. Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow-nosed rhinoceros → Stephanorhinus hemitoechus – there are only 126 .scholar hits for the vernacular name since 2000, while there are 774 for Stephanorhinus hemitoechus Kev min § 19:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, most familiar name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BUT not at all the most commonly used name for the taxon.--Kev min § 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is English Wikipedia, not Latin Wikipedia. I know the discussion points, and your nomination will probably will out, but Stephanorhinus hemitoechus? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanorhinus hemitoechus isn't Latin though, its a made up name that does not belong to any modern language in the way you are implying. Or would you say not to use Façade as its not an "English" word?--Kev min § 02:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not sure why this gets a page of its own at all. I would prefer a merge with Stephanorhinus, as extinct taxa only usually get pages at the genus level. Even Tyrannosaurus rex does not get its own page! YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above, and per paleo project guidelines, prehistoric species should preferably be dealt with at the genus page unless that is too long, which is not the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge If Stephanorhinus had only a handful of species, I might agree with the merge, but Stephanorhinus currently has 7 recognised valid species. "Per PALEO guidelines" is subjective. We wouldn't merge Woolly mammoth into Mammoth, nor Woolly rhinoceros into Coelodonta even if that might be justifiable "Per PALEO guidelines". The whole point of "Per PALEO guidelines" is that it allows the redirection of two sentence stubs that nobody has put any effort into to avoid clutter, the current content of this article goes above that. The question that has to be asked is "Does this taxon have enought literature specifically discussing it in detail separate from other Stephanorhinus species beyond basic morphological information?" And this answer I think to this is yes. We have journal articles discussing human exploitation and diet [1] [2] [3]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that mammoths are some of the most famous prehistoric animals ever with gigantic literatures, this here rhino genus isn't, and it's unlikely their articles will grow by much, with most info fitting in the genus article. We should split articles when they become too big, not pre-emptively because we think they might be too big some day. If someone is willing to expand the articles until they meet the split-size border (see WP:article size), feel free. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge and rename:Notable for living until recently and interacting with early humans. Also has unique morphological traits among Stephanorhinus species. Often this info gets lost in genus articles that are too long, or it gets wrongly lumped into another species article. Less opposed to rename, but Narrow-nosed rhinoceros is frequently used in museum exhibits, encyclopedias and even scientific papers. No reason it shouldn't be kept if we aren't renaming Merck's rhinoceros as well. --Porqaz (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanorhinus kirchbergensis is already at the binomial, and not at "Merck's rhinoceros", based on the same issue as here. The vernaculars are much LESS frequently used in WP:Reliable sources as shown by a look at sources. Every named species has a unique set of features though, and its easy enough to address those at the genus level, as shown by Palaeovespaand Florissantia (plant).--Kev min § 00:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename and/or merge, this is not a major enough species to have its own article akin to Wooly mammoth (heck, Smilodon fatalis is much more well-known and doesn't have its own article). Additionally, the vernacular name is clearly not the common name used by relevant authorities. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 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.