Talk:South Asian river dolphin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

File:Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zionix 13, GriffinSolsburg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Seperate articles!

Template:Archive top red 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? --IslesCape^Talk 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they should be different articles. Mik357 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but this should still be a species article. Hesperian 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 [1]. NapoleonARS 11:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I Agree too Alokprasad (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Action?? Acejet (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be two different articles. There are clear differences and they exist in different unconnected rivers. Some people attempted to politicise this of all things. --Xinjao (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Separate Article

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

• separate article, makes logical sense. Sense there are only two member of the genus, Platanista, the genus could have it's own page.

• SUPPORT since they are different species.--64.76.133.179 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Split declined

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)

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)

Still no consistent split/separation?

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)

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.

The Secrets of the Blind Dolphins

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)

External links modified

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)

Merge Ganges river dolphin back to this article

Template:Archive top green Based on about discussion on splitting the article, there was no consensus to do so. The newly created Ganges river dolphin (aka Ganges River Dolphin) had no content other than content that describe the South Asian river dolphin. Matthew_hk tc 03:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think when I Bubbles Created the Ganges river Dolphin article in april 2018 used the evidence that there were different subspecies part of the same genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 2018-04-18T19:00:22 (UTC)

Given the discussion on the talk page above (2007-2011), I wholly agree with the comment made by Pete Hobbs that "there should be TWO stub articles or NO stub articles". The problem indeed lies in the sequence and history of the articles' creation and the fact that no matter what we decide for the two subspecies pages, the parent species will still always require its own article as well. It is further complicated by the recent copy/paste moves and history merges of redirects with alternate capitalization. Currently we have the following articles:

• South Asian river dolphin - the species article created in 2003
• Indus river dolphin - first created as a redirect in 2004 (originally to Ganges and Indus River Dolphin, now redirects to the species page), and then changed to a subspecies article in 2010 following a discussion no longer visible on WT:Ganges and Indus River Dolphin (referred to in edit summary here).
• Ganges river dolphin - apparently created as a redirect in 2004(?), and attempted to be developed into a separate subspecies article in the last few days.

After waiting over ten years for the subspecies articles to develop on their own, it is now apparent that there is insufficient information for three separate articles (one at the species level and one article for each of the two subspecies). As such, instead of the suggested merge, I propose instead the following rationalization:

• Merge Indus river dolphin to the species page (South Asian river dolphin).
• Change Ganges river dolphin (revert back?) to a redirect to the species page (South Asian river dolphin). This does not need a merge as there is no separate information on the page that has not been copied from the species page.
• Keep South Asian river dolphin as the article for the whole species, including sections on each of the two subspecies. Disjunct distribution ranges are common in other species as well, and is not a reason to split the species article. Loopy30 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the above approach. Splitting off subspecies articles is really only justified if there is a lot of material at the subspecies level, which is not the case here. Let's keep it in one place, and keep that one legible... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse this well-reasoned argument. The recent re-lumping of the two species looks solidly based. It'd be much more helpful to readers to have all the information in one place. Navigation at the moment is horribly confusing. It would also avoid duplicated and (even worse) possibly differing information between the three articles. Narky Blert (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment. IMO Eurasian tree sparrow#Subspecies is a commendable example of how to present information about subspecies, in this case of a species which extends half-way around the Northern Hemisphere. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse the above rationalisation put by Loopy30. Someone said succinctly back in 2010 that "There are clear differences and they exist in different unconnected rivers", but that doesn't automatically qualify or justify each sub-species having a separate stub page. If those differences can be described sufficiently and efficiently via appropriate sections in the South Asian river dolphin species article, then the stub-confusions and stub-disparities can be avoided at a stroke. Dolphins may like going round in circles, but readers don't - give them straight information, neatly gathered and clearly defined, and they'll thank you for it. The passing of years has shown there was little to be gained or added by the creation of the two stub pages. Pete Hobbs (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Matthew_hk, Loopy30, Narky Blert, Pete Hobbs - consensus seems to favour merging into South Asian river dolphin. It's been a month now. Shall we? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The consensus seems very clear, and all contributing editors have presented thoughtful arguments. I say, go ahead. Narky Blert (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In the last month, the Ganges river dolphin article has been added to, but there is still nothing to indicate that either subspecies article has sufficient material to warrant a separate article. As no sources of substantial information on the subspecies seem to exist, it is now time to merge the articles back to the parent species article (South Asian river dolphin). Loopy30 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work on that. Going to do the fiddling in my sandbox and then post a merged article - I don't think a piecemeal approach will be suitable... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done Done. Actually there was little to merge; it was a more a question of updating the outdated information in the species article re distribution and population numbers (there's a 2017 IUCN report that had not been made use of). I did not include a single thing from the rather scrawny Ganges river dolphin article, I'm sorry to say. - Also, corrected the temporal range in the infobox (produced by the usual suspect) from 20mya to a rather recent 12ka - seems unlikely to be true but that's the age of existing specimens [2], so I suppose that's what should be reported. Unless we want to do family level instead, which would be Miocene. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Miocene

Should we add this for the whole family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talk • contribs) 20:13 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Vision

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionix 13 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed that "Blind River Dolphin: First Side-Swimming Cetacean" has been cited as three different versions even though they are the same article. I don't know how to fix this, could someone look into the issue? Zionix 13 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello all,

I made some edits to the 'Human Interaction' section of the article. I rephrased many of the existing sentences so they are easier to read as an entire paragraph, as well as adding some new information on the topic. If I have made any errors, feel free to comment and I can work to amend them. GriffinSolsburg (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

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)

Split into separate articles

[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)

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)

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)

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)

File:Yes check.svg Done 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)

Inconsistency re IUCN assessment

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)

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

Infobox says the genus is omly 12,000 years old!

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)

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)

Delete this article and improve the two actual species articles

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)

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