This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fishes Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance 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. Sharks Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The holotype tooth of Eorhincodon is considered to be a parasymphyseal tooth of Rhizoprionodon by Cappetta (2012) ^[1]. These two pages should be merged since they are considered synonyms. Carnoferox ( talk) 15:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. First of all, if we merge, we need to transfer all information to the other article. What you did was, instead, essentially a deletion. And this one seems to be a complicated case, as the same name was used for different things. People searching for this name are maybe more likely to look for Pseudomegachasma instead. Also, Rhizoprionodon is a modern genus, and incorporating this info on an invalid fossil might be excessive info for that article. Maybe keeping this article (without taxonbox since it is invalid) might be the better option? The case is not clear to me in any case; if you want to merge, best follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Merging (place the templates to let other people know and get some discussion) beforehand. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 16:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I see no point in keeping this article separate, it is a stub with barely any information. I think it is best to merge with Rhizoprionodon and keep Eorhincodon in the synonym list. Carnoferox ( talk) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

As said, we can't just delete the information. Then please follow Wikipedia:Merging and wait for consensus. Thanks. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 17:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply

In the mean time, I will add a disclaimer about the synonymy to this page. Carnoferox ( talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply