Talk:Thylacoleo

Sorry, no ads on Wikipedia
In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I removed an ad link -- see External_links. If there's any question or problem with this, please discuss with a Wikipedia administrator. -- Writtenonsand 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
We should merge Marsupial Lion with either this page, or Thylacoleonidae.--Mr Fink 15:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither. Marsupial Lion is about one species, which is a member of the genus Thylacoleo, which is in the family Thylacoleonidae. Marsupial lion, though, can properly redirect to either the genus or the family, and in fact it already is redirected to the family. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Mr Fink. This page seems less about the genus and more about the species T. carnifex, particularly in the description, where it claims "Pound for pound, Thylacoleo had the strongest bite of any mammal species living or extinct; a 100 kg (220 lb) Thylacoleo had a bite comparable to that of a 250 kg (550 lb) African Lion and is thought to have hunted large animals such as diprotodonts and giant kangaroos." Now, that's true for the case of T. carnifex, but not others, such as T. crassidentatus, which was about the size of a dog, and T. hilli who was smaller again. I'll also point out that giant kangaroos were diprotodonts. T.carnifex (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since multiple species have been referenced in the taxobox, this article does need to remain in existence. Marsupial Lion should contain all information about that species, whereas this page should only include information common to all species.  The solution is to remove only the information that is species-specific, and move that to the appropriate page-- even if it means creating new pages. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly in agreement. We don't need to move all of the species specific info, if such info is written in a manner conducive to a genus-level article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've come around to agree with UtherSRG. It should also be more clear, when the Thylacoleo page does make species specific references, which species is being referred to.T.carnifex (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree any genus should be merged to the famly page, but as it is now, the articles about individual Thylacoleo species are useless and should be emrged. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course genera deserve their own page, but I don't think there should be pages for the sake of having a page and saying something like "Wakaleo is a genus of Thylacoleonid." I know that's not what you were really suggesting, but it's just to say if there's not enough detail for page on a genus, then the short description (i.e. one or two sentences) can be at home on the family page. That's obviously not the case for this genus. Currently I disagree with your proposal to merge all species of Thylacoleo into the one page for the genus. There exists sufficient detail and knowledge for Thylacoleo carnifex to occupy a page in its own right. The other species of Thylacoleo, perhaps not. As discussed above, vague references to T. carnifex, where the species is referred to solely by it's genus, should certainly be made clearer or removed entirely. I don't want to sound boring, but to perhaps fix these issues this page should be reduced to a stub and contain only taxonomic information. Almost all of the ecological and behavioural information is relevant to one species only, and can already be found at the page for that species. T.carnifex (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that almost none of the info on the carnifex article is unique to this species. It is ripe for a merger. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, are the other species even valid? The Paleo database only lists carnifex: http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=checkTaxonInfo&taxon_no=40139&is_real_user=0 FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Paleobiology Database does not claim to be exhaustive as to species, and should not be used for this purpose. Reliable scientific literature on the topic should be searched for the different species, not a listing of a collections database in progress. Eau (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let's find some. Do any recent papers even mention those other species? FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of their mention in recent papers also does not establish their synonymy or lack of taxonomic validity. However, Thylacoleo crassidentatus is mentioned in a 2011 Royal Society publication and Thylacoleo hilli in a 2009 publication. I cannot access the publications now. Eau (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, do you have the URLs? FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did a google scholar search on each binomial in quotes, limited to articles from 2008 to today. Eau (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I found some more mentions in articles from 2000 to now, so it seems they are valid after all. This article is still in sore need of citations though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even good peer-reviewed journals have problems with taxonomy, though. This is part of the reason that biological databases steer clear of taxa numbers; this type of knowledge is highly specialized and requires taxonomists. But, as an encyclopedia, we cannot do more than the experts, and that those with specialized knowledge in this genus or its ecological niches consider these other species valid can suffice for their inclusion in Wikipedia. Eau (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to merge that single species article into this genus article. I think I'll add a merger tag. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you have a habit of placing merger tags here and there, or making merger discussions, and this is regarding articles that have sufficient WP:reliable sources to be articles of their own, for which reasons to keep separate from related pages have been mentioned. Why is that? Leo1pard (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because whether an article should be stand-alone or not does not depend on the availability of reliable sources or not, in fact, it is completely irrelevant. It only dictates whether the info should be included in an article. In fact, failure to understand this seems to be one of the reasons you have been making many unneeded WP:content forks without prior discussion (leading to countless DR and merge requests, and wasting everyone's time). What matters is where the subject is best covered; in this case, there is no reason for a stand-alone article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are showing WP:IDONTLIKEIT and disrespect again. Behind the backs of authors of those articles that you don't like, you like to make controversial arguments that for example a detailed article like this should be merged with a related page, or that they are creating "WP:content forks" or "wasting people's times", even if they took the time to study and give relevant sources to do what they do, which you don't always appreciate, describing their sources or efforts with words like 'garbage' even. I am not pleased with this. Did you think that you can do something like this without the creators of these articles checking to see what happens to them? Leo1pard (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're on about, nothing is "behind anyone's backs", it's right here in plain sight. And it is not about what I like or not, it is about precedence and long established standards. The latest merge discussions you've been involved in with many established editors should make it clear to you that you need to familiarise yourself with how things are done around here, and not create unneeded articles left and right. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 6 years after another user commented here, arguing that an article like this is a 'fork' or that there are "all the more reasons" for merging this with another detailed article is pointless. Leo1pard (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Photograph added, others available
I've added a photograph of a skeleton of the Marsupial Lion to that page, which could also be used here. I have a few other photographs of the skeletons in the Naracoorte Caves which I can also upload if they seem worthwhile, but I think this is the best one. There's a link to the photos on the Naracoorte page. Karora 10:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Article contradicting itself with description
In the chapter Description I read the text "The long muscular tail was similar to that of a kangaroo. Specialized tail bones called chevrons allowed the animal to tripod itself, and...'". But when I look at the picture in the infobox, I see a completely different type of tail. Could someone sort this out please? Scarabaeoid (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the image is incorrect, you can replace it with the one further down. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just done so. It's still not as good a match as I'd like, but it definitely is better. (I'll probably get flamed by the original artist as I've taken exception to a number of his drawings...) - UtherSRG (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still wondering. I can't see much of a tail in the picture of the displayed skeleton. Isn't it the textual description that needs changing? Scarabaeoid (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was only recently (about 2004) that a full skeleton was found, complete with tail. The reconstruction at the Naracoorte Caves (where the photo was taken) is at least 20 years old. The palaeontology lab at Flinders University recently completed a skeletal reconstruction (last week), complete with tail. T.carnifex (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The tail isn't wrong, it is just completely absent in that mount. If we want to be safe, we should stick to the picture of the skull in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed
Why was my new section removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.173.234 (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, it appears that you were copying and pasting from the original source. Please don't copy and paste large tracts of text from the original source, as that may cause copyright violation issues.  Second, it's not very well-written.  Third, the original source does not sound very reliable.  Please read here for more information about reputable sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, the copy/paste was because it was the actual, unedited sighting, I thought if I typed it out, it would ruin it, since it would no longer be the original report.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thylacoleo. 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/20070426142324/http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/staff/swroe/swroe.htm to http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/staff/swroe/swroe.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727131817/https://www.museum.wa.gov.au/exhibitions/online/thylacoleo/hunter.asp to http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/exhibitions/online/thylacoleo/hunter.asp

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) 10:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing statement
"Following the extinction of T. carnifex, no other apex mammalian predators has taken its place." Do you mean no apex mammalian predator took its place for a certain amount of time? Dingos eventually entered the scene some 3500 years ago. Was there truly no apex predator between 46,000 and 3,500 YBP? Does this perhaps mean to say "no other marsupial apex predator" or "no mammalian apex predators took its place for over 40,000 years"? 67.175.116.105 (talk)

Merge

 * For extinct genera where not much is known about each individual species, or if the genus is predominantly known from 1 or a few species, then it's standard to redirect all species articles to the genus, such as Triceratops or Iguanodon Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a statement for merging into the genus article? - UtherSRG (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh... you're proposing the merger. Why did I think this was already a proposal. I'm looking at too many articles at once again. *grins* Anyway, I could support a merger. Seems to currently only be 3 species articles, and only one has any real amount of meat on its bones... pun intended. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merge, per general practice. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - as per previous merge request. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Image
Xyxyzyz (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)