This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.
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.
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Skeleton or life reconstruction in the taxobox?
I'm a bit uncertain about this. On one hand, no complete frozen adult specimens are known, making all modern reconstructions partially guesswork and probably erroneous to some extend, so the safest and most reliable would be to have a mounted skeleton in the taxobox. On the other hand, due to cave art and these frozen specimens, the life appearance of this species is probably the best known of any extinct prehistoric animal, though the woolly rhino comes close. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If any of the reconstructions currently available in Commons are not enough accurate (bad shape of ears, colour of hair too reddish, wrong orientation of tusks, etc.) or with an appropiate size, the logical solution is leave the image of a skeleton. --Rextron (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems most restorations make the ears too big, as the shape and size of the adult ear was only recently known, so I'll just keep the skeleton. The model under description actually isn't too bad, even though it was made in the 1970s. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
How did a land bridge act as a barrier?Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Removed, it was due to the mesic habitat there, but it does not seem to have affected the mammoths. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
How do the teeth of "Lyuba" indicate the length of gestation?
I will clarify this. FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW ""Lyuba" is believed to have suffocated by inhaling mud as she struggled while bogged down in deep mud in the bed of a river which its herd was crossing." isn't wrong but it lurches from one clause to another (6 verb clauses, 3 prepositional). Please simplify or split.
One shows the distribution of woolly mammoths, the other shows the distribution of specific habitats, including the "mammoth steppe". But I can remove the second one, if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This Manta Ray map is wonderfully clear.
OK, then the 2nd map's caption should say "Distribution of Mammoth steppe (orange [or whatever, I can't see it]) at last Ice Age maximum". The map may well need simplifying - ideally it would be all blank drab continents, white ice, and bright coloured only for Mammoth steppe.
It's "steppe tundra" on the map, but I'm colour blind, so I'm not entirely sure what colour it is. Pink? fuchsia? Grey? May be a good reason to remove it... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed the image. This article isn't about that habitat anyway.
How is Hay, 1924 responsible for calling it both Elephas and Mammuthus? Did he perhaps just give the name M. boreus (or vice versa) so (E. boreus) would then be ascribed to him indirectly?
The other way around. But sometimes the author of the new combination is credited instead, but that seems to be elusive information. Both should be valid. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I believe that when the generic name changes, the credit changes from "Author, 1900" to "(Author, 1900)" if people are being careful. So given what you say I'm not sure there should be 2 credits to Hay. Doubt if it matters but I'd like to understand.
I'm not sure myself, form the articles here at least, all names are in parenthesis? As for combination credit, I've seen both versions used in many books. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, not to worry.
Lister 2007 is cited for numerous early theories (Hannibal's elephants, etc). It would be better if possible to have explicit early references for each of these theories, perhaps with a little more detail (even a section, "Early theories").
Most of these theories are so old (and not part of modern journals) that it will be hard to track down, but I'll see what I can do. FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be very nice but it's not a showstopper for this GA.
In which year did Jefferson use Mammoth as an adjective?
Added, and discovered the cheese itself had an article! FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In what sense is M. rumanus the earliest known type? The earliest European one?
Yes. Will make that clearer, if it isn't. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"A 2011 genetic study showed that two examined specimens of the Columbian mammoth were grouped within a subclade of woolly mammoths. This suggests that the two populations interbred..." How does it do that? Maybe a diagram would help show the relationships of all these species and types.
I cannot find a cladogram of how mammoth species are interrelated, and I don't think there are any, because their evolution is pretty linear, and not very branched. I was thinking of adding one that shows how mammoths are related to other elephant genera. Unfortunately, I'm very bad at coding cladograms (I tried on Dodo and Moa, with varying results)... Maybe I can ask somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be nice. But why does being in a subclade suggest interbreeding? It could suggest a process of separation...
Well, that's what the source says, and I think the Columbian species was present in America before the woolly one, so they would had been separated long before. But it seems further study is needed to clarify this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll ask someone to adapt this cladogram from Shoshani and Tassy 2005. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be helpful but it's not a showstopper for this GA.
"they can be considered either primitive forms of a derived species, or derived forms of a primitive species." Makes the reader's head whirl - I think I know what this means, but again a diagram could make this a lot easier.
Maybe say "advanced" instead of derived? Though I know such terminology is frowned upon by some today.... FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That wouldn't be better; try something like "Such an intermediate form could be considered as part of either species" (please tweak as appropriate, you get the idea).
But the point is that it is not "just" part of either species, but are, depending on who you ask, either advanced steppe mammoths, or primitive woolly mammoths. We can't haver it both ways. If we simplify it, that meaning is lost. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Not asking for simplification but clarification. Why don't you explain to readers what you've just explained to me...
Alright, I'll give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great.
"was even proposed to be a new subspecies" - is this editorialising, or is there reason to doubt the claim?
Later studies have downplayed their distinctness, but named woolly mammoth subspecies are discussed extremely little or at all after they are named, as it seems most researchers don't find them valid. But they never state this unambiguously, for some reason. But I will remove "even". FunkMonk (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. There are some other "even"s in the article - probably all right but please look.
I've replaced all bare URLs now. Was a remnant of the old article. I don't like all those press releases myself, and have tried to replace them with actual scientific papers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Still something wrong with links 24, 71. 75.
I removed 75, because it was unnecessary, but I'm not sure what's wrong with 24 and 71? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed 3 refs by hand, one was a DOI cite that didn't expand for me, the other 2 were just naked URLs, see the article's edit log.
Thanks for the review and copyedits, I'll adresse these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, do you know why the two last synonyms in the taxobox appear smaller than the rest? They shouldn't.FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
yeah, needed to be </small> not <small/>
Comment - Apparently the first ref (Lister) is so detailed on one page (192) that that one page alone can be used for over 30 citations. Even if that's the case (which I highly doubt), it should say "p.192", not "pp. 192". --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Mmm. I've left the original ref (near end of article) but have changed all the rest to "Page needed". They need fixing either with other pages from Lister or indeed other sources entirely. I've removed the name=Lister from them so they stand separately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Should be "pages" in plural. For a potential FAC, I'll add individual pages, because I'm pretty sure it isn't needed for GA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Gosh. As far as I can tell from WP:CITE, there is no general need to cite everything, and a ref at the end of a paragraph or section that all comes from one source is acceptable unless something is challenged (which it now has been, by FT). However, it looks as if (and common sense dictates that) the rule is "if there is a citation, it should be correct". It could possibly have been all right just to put Lister in the Bibliography; it is not all right to put "Lister page 192" for facts which did not come from that page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course not, the singular page was an old mistake, and as I said, it should had been plural (192 pages, not page 192). And that's what I meant, that as far as I know, specific pages do not need to be specified for GAs. But I will do that eventually, so might as well do it now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
What would be acceptable page ranges? For example, if biological issues are covered across fifteen pages, is it enough to list those, or should it be broken further down? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I can't see anything very clear written down either way, and honestly I much prefer to see articles improved, as here, than to spend time arguing. The article is much the better for the accurate page refs. I've no idea how wide a page range can be; I have myself once or twice been picked up for excess ranges, and the cure is obvious. If you've summarized a chapter in a paragraph, it's surely sensible to give a wide range; when it's a matter of BLP or right-wing dictators, the page has to be exact, one at a time, one ref per sentence. BTW I'd wondered long ago if "pages=" meant "number of pages in the book": it seems that it's very rarely understood that way by editors! People use it for page ranges.
There are 2 citations to the same letter by Breyne, but the refs given are different. Please correct and unify them under one name.
Thanks for the thorough review and I'm happy that you pushed for some improvements that will benefit an eventual FAC. I'll try to get the remaining issues fixed before such. Your copyedits were also invaluable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
That's brilliant. It's a sweat at the time, I know. Glad to have been of service. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If a wolly mammoth is ever cloned, would it be possible for it to live in one or another of the so-called Pleistocene Parks? I ask because I'm extremely interested in the mammoth, but I'm also aware of the ethical dilemmas involved in bringing one or more back to life.
I believe there is uncertainty if exactly the right milieu exists anywhere on the earth today. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether the "range map" should be in the taxobox or in the article? In most prehistoric animal article, there is none, and it is kind of misleading, since it is only based on fossils... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed a sentence of biased opinion: "He also notes that the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear; these resources should instead be used to preserve extant elephant species which are endangered."
Everyone has their own opinion, everyone has their pet projects (sic). Nobody was suggesting recreating mammoths would be cheap or quick. And scientific processes often have tenuous prospects for important successes. Suggesting how the resources "should" be spent is meretricious. The international scientific community has already realized that the world does not have enough resources to save all endangered species, even if it wants, and that decisions must be made about which are desirable and cost-effective. So even if the mammoth argument was something to the effect of "It's easier and cheaper to preserve species that are still living", it isn't necessarily true that the alternative choice would be existing elephants. It might well be that recreating a mammoth has more value than, say, preserving a noxious kind of mosquito. Leptus Froggi (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I can see your point slightly, but this is the opinion of respected scientists (and it is attributed to them, not stated as fact), and it has been approved by several reviewers, and most importantly, it is reliably sourced. So you shouldn't just go around removing stuff before bringing it up. Bad manners. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Manners? Well, "manners" would have been writing to my talk page, or explaining your edit in in the Edit Summary, instead of making me guess that you might have responded in talk. The fact that someone with a PhD has an unencyclopedic, biased opinion about how public money should be spent is irrelevant. There are millions of such people, and not every one of them has a right to express their opinion in Wikipedia. If he thought the best use of the money was to save African, but not Asian elephants, could you still imagine his opinion was anything else but his attempt to sway the public on the basis of what he, personally, wants money spent on? Your point of view is so biased, you should not even continue. I'm perfectly willing and able to call in arbitration. I have a special interest with people who manipulate Wikipedia to their own WP:BIAS. Leptus Froggi (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Please don't be disruptive just to make a point. You're the one proposing a drastic change of content which has been approved by several other editors during several peer reviews. You bring it up here, and then we talk about it, and if there is support from many others, we can remove it. Not before. You can also make a request for comment or nominate this to be delisted as FA, be my guest. The point is, your own subjective opinion doesn't trump that of many other editors (or the reliable sources), therefore it needs discussion first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It's clear from context that this is one opinion. I don't see what the problem is if it's sourced. If somebody publishes a counter-opinion, that can and should be cited too. Done. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. Wikipedia isn't a forum or a chatroom on the main page, any more than it is in Talk. People are making an entirely unwarranted public statement about what money SHOULD be spent on. This is completely illegitimate in an encyclopedia, and it really doesn't matter FunkMonk, whether you and a bunch of your friends banded together to intimidate other editors with your opinion. Leptus Froggi (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by consensus and sources. You are working against both. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
If these removals of sourced content continue, this'll have to be discussed elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Restored the content as I see no support for its removal. Vsmith (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems someone screwed up the automatic taxobox page? Not sure how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
in what way ? I can't see a change (but I don't know how it looked before or what is incorrect. have you tried looking for the root templates that make up template:speciesbox to see if that is where the change originated? EdwardLane (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There are no taxa above Mammuthus, and the colour of the template has disappeared. I don't know much about the system. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)