Talk:South Asian river dolphin

message: Given that Ganges and Indus River Dolphins are two different sub-species, and are found in completely different geographic locations, I don't see why we shouldn't have seperate articles for both. Any suggestions? --IslesCapeTalk 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they should be different articles. Mik357 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go for it. It will add to the number of wikipedia articles, and the two deserve seperate articles anyway. Elasmosaurus (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this should still be a species article. Hesperian 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the existing article content is enough to justify the suggested separate two articles. Let's leave this species article; if and when somebody contributes a separate article for either, its redirection to this can be replaced. RickJP (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. There should be a separate article, so we can emphasize Pakistan's preservation history for this great animal. Plus, it will provide a separate identity than the Indian Ganges dolphin. Use this website . NapoleonARS 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Action?? Acejet (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Which version of google was this search done on :) I see 72,500 for "Indus river dolphin", 75,400 for "Ganges river dolphin", and a mere 15,500 for "South Asian River Dolphin". Given that a chunk of the latter is probably wikipedia generated, I think we're inventing a new term here. --rgpk (comment) 13:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperate articles! 

message: Separate Article,
Easier to add data Alokprasad (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Article  

message: There was no clear material dealing purely with either of the two subspecies - the article was dealing with this dolphin as the one species, and of the way it had grown apart, and the difficulties in classifying it. For full understanding for the general reader the article is better left intact. A search for sources showed that South Asian River Dolphin was the common name, and that had more Google hits and reliable sources than did both of the subspecies names put together. If someone now wishes to create a section in this article which deals exclusively with one or other (or both) of the subspecies, that would be useful. And if a subsection grows too large for this article (more than four full paragraphs), then it can be split out into a standalone article in WP:Summary style. SilkTork *YES! 11:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which version of google was this search done on :) I see 72,500 for "Indus river dolphin", 75,400 for "Ganges river dolphin", and a mere 15,500 for "South Asian River Dolphin". Given that a chunk of the latter is probably wikipedia generated, I think we're inventing a new term here. --rgpk (comment) 13:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Split declined

message: Given all the above (2007-2011), it's frankly incredible that in 2014 the article's wikilink through to Indus river dolphin finds a separate article, but the article's wikilink through to  Ganges River dolphin redirects to South Asian river dolphin - in other words, sends you back where you started!!! Lack of progress = ongoing confusion and annoyance for the reader. I'm no expert on dolphins, so I can't resolve this - but I do know that any learning of their differences is made harder by this inconsistency of page-presence. Is one meant to think (for example) that the Indus dolphin is quite important and the Ganges dolphin is relatively unimportant by comparison? Or that lots is known about the first but almost nothing is known of the second? Plainly there should be TWO stub articles or NO stub articles, for clarity and consistency. Clearly someone had the right idea (started the two stubs) and then someone else redirected the Ganges stub (effectively killing it at birth) before others had the chance to expand it, while the Indus stub was left to grow into the larger article it's since become. Restore the Ganges stub page and it'll grow to sort itself out in similar fashion. Pete Hobbs (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still no consistent split/separation? 

message: A book written by Giorgio Pilleri printed by Elite Publishers Ltd. D-118, SITE Karachi, Pakistan. Publish by Sind Wildlife Management Board, Wildlife & Forest Department, Government of Sind, Karachi, Pakistan.
Posted by Asghar Ali Porik Jasmine Tours Pakistan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaporik (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Secrets of the Blind Dolphins 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on South Asian river dolphin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161128073024/http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/national_symbols.html to http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/national_symbols.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611110231/http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/data/P_gangetica/p_gangetica.htm to http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/data/P_gangetica/p_gangetica.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/laksingh33/ch_dol.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611110231/http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/data/P_gangetica/p_gangetica.htm to http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/data/P_gangetica/p_gangetica.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, just made edits to the article on the topic of vision, was only able to cite one source.  If you know of any other sources, or have any other edits to make, please notify me and I will gladly correct the passage. Zionix 13 (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision 

message: Hello BIOE 129L students,
I think the information your group added is very beneficial to the article.  While reading through I did notice a lot of grammatical/typing errors, so that is something you might want to go back and edit for.  The Vocalization section of the article is kind of confusing and short, so elaborating on and editing that would be a good idea.  It is unclear whether you are talking about the human use of echolocation or the dolphin use; maybe make a section for each and elaborate on both a bit more.  In the Vision section, if you could add how the light-gathering component of the retina benefits the dolphin (what purpose does this serve for the dolphin?) then I think that would be helpful.
Great job! - Sntgt15 (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: [Recent studies] indicate that the two subspecies again are distinct species from one another, and the [ASM MammalDiversity] database has also followed through. Should they be split again? Geekgecko (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be more correct to divide the article into three rather than two: Platanista, Ganges river dolphin and Indus river dolphin. In Platanista, we can leave everything that concerns both species (or subspecies), and put the rest in the corresponding articles. HFoxii (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yeah, that's what I meant, thanks! It looks like the pages for both species previously existed before being merged into the genus, so it looks like I have my work cut out for me on making large pages for each species.Geekgecko (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Approve. These are separate species. If you need help making the new pages, let me know. 74.68.117.176 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Revived the two deleted articles, revised them a bit to make them more encyclopedic, and moved relevant info between page. Feel free to revise them more or add more info.Geekgecko (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

text: It saids the fossil record is 12,000! A species can exist for longer then it left a fossil record. LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Please read further up that this proposal has been made and rejected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into separate articles

message: The IUCN Red List assessors Braulik & Smith (2019) treat the Indus and Ganges river dolphins as subspecies of the South Asian river dolphin. Hence, it is incorrect that their assessment is referenced at the Ganges river dolphin page as this taxon being ENdangered, as they did NOT assess this subspecies only, but EN is the unit of both taxa. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency re IUCN assessment

message: 0.012 Ma is only 12,000 years ago, and yet in the opening paragraph we are told the two extant species of this genus diverged 550,000 years ago. 2603:6010:2501:9E1D:644B:2E8E:98E8:A480 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It saids the fossil record is 12,000! A species can exist for longer then it left a fossil record. LittleJerry (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox says the genus is omly 12,000 years old! 

message: Since there is no widespread use of "South Asian river dolphin" as a term, and since there are now two species that are used to refer to the dolphin, this article should be split into the Indus river dolphin and the Ganges river dolphin. VigilantAcountant (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read further up that this proposal has been made and rejected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article and improve the two actual species articles