Taxobox removal I removed the taxobox The article seems to be about a common name that refers to most or all species of two cetacean families This was reverted here with the edit summary Revert information in infobox takes this into account provides useful information Dolphin is a common name for some species of the two families not a single scientific taxon The article explains this fact I would not remove useful information The specious inclusion is very misleading it is best explained in the article What reliable source would state it refers to these two taxa when some of them have the common name of whale Why should the taxobox be used for an article about a non systematic name I wouldn t have a problem with having two families in the taxobox except that under current taxonomy this one is now incorrect I am not concerned about the fact that some dolphins have a common name of whale since most authoritative sources would recognize those species dolphin species despite the common name since all are in Delphinidae But the problem is that the River Dolphins have now been split into multiple families so just using Delphinidae and Platanistoidea is no longer correct And rather than include five families in the taxobox which becomes somewhat spurious it seems better to remove the taxobox and discuss the taxonomy in the article What if the family section is just left out Or be given a note like See article I like the infobox and it does provide useful data and a basic glance at where dolphins fit in in the animal kingdom it never fails to amaze me how many people do not seem to realise dolphins are mammals Looking at some other articles there s no consensus on the infobox usage The whale article has no infobox for example while many others such as the shark lizard or turtle articles do have them I have a problem with original research being used in our document This would include basing a taxon on a common name there is no concordance between common names and biological nomenclature A reader comes here to acquire facts those few who do not know they are mammals can gain that information from the content proper of the article The two families or even five are not given an accepted taxon the fact that some reliable sources also name some of the species as Dolphins is incidental not authoritative Everyone likes the taxobox let us be careful with our names here most of all it is not an infobox I appreciate that the undue weight given to other names appended to the correct name may cause this misapprehension but the consensus is that a taxobox should summarise a single taxon and be included in only one article Whale is without one for reasons that are intimately linked with this article s title The other examples you have given are hopefully given in RS that state unequivocally a common name refers to a taxon Sharks superorder Selachimorpha Lizards Suborder Lacertilia are a very large and widespread group of reptiles of the order Squamata highly debatable but still a single taxon and superorder Chelonia turtles is yet another reptilian Sauropsida example that needed resolving Removing duplicated or specious spurious taxoboxes is never popular with those who had a notion to include them I m not sure why but it is certain to be the right path for clarifying explanations to our dear readers An article on the common name dolphin is justified it could be more than a dab but it is not a taxon Please undo the unfounded revert of my edit All dolphins belong to the suborder of Odontoceti every animal mentioned in this article does so the taxobox tree is correct especially considering my last edit so no incorrect data is given in the box I don t feel the definition of a dolphin as used in this article is based on original research but is what is quite commonly accepted as what animals are covered under the word dolphin Encarta for example in my opinion a good source for reference also lists t