Talk:Megalochelys

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turtles, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject TurtlesTurtles articles

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

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.

The result was merge Megalochelys atlas into Megalochelys. -- Borophagus (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly not enough information unique to each species to justify splitting each one off. As is standard for extinct creatures in this instance, we should split only to genus level. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree. As only one species even has its own article (which has more information than the article for the genus itself!) they should be merged. Borophagus (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I suggested it here[1] once. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (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.

Reference wrong

Hi I tried to remove a duplication of a reference but the bot undid it. The bot is suggesting Chelonian Research Monographs is a book, it is not it is a journal, second the ref is already cited under the authors (reference 1) listing the same ref twice seems overkill, also refs are usually done by author not editor. The ref the bot is tring to add is inorrectly formated. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]