This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The publication on this species has retracted as of August 20, 2012 ( http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/14/1211510109.short, see also http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/author-retracts-pnas-about-alleged-pliocine-cheetah-fossil-that-had-been-questioned/#more-9286). Should the whole page be deleted or should it be stubbed and left with information about the nonexistence of such a species?
No, the page need not be removed. It is a good lesson in the history of science - learning from the wrong way. I have expanded it, and also removed the tag:
{{multiple issues|
{{update|date=November 2012}}
{{disputed|date=November 2012}}
{{expert-subject|date=November 2012}}
}}
and also the taxobox, as the species is no longer valid. Chhandama ( talk) 16:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the image should be removed. It's an oxymoron to have a scientific reconstruction of an animal that never existed.
2601:441:4900:A6E0:AC8C:9A01:E5DE:3784 (
talk)
20:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The publication on this species has retracted as of August 20, 2012 ( http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/14/1211510109.short, see also http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/author-retracts-pnas-about-alleged-pliocine-cheetah-fossil-that-had-been-questioned/#more-9286). Should the whole page be deleted or should it be stubbed and left with information about the nonexistence of such a species?
No, the page need not be removed. It is a good lesson in the history of science - learning from the wrong way. I have expanded it, and also removed the tag:
{{multiple issues|
{{update|date=November 2012}}
{{disputed|date=November 2012}}
{{expert-subject|date=November 2012}}
}}
and also the taxobox, as the species is no longer valid. Chhandama ( talk) 16:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the image should be removed. It's an oxymoron to have a scientific reconstruction of an animal that never existed.
2601:441:4900:A6E0:AC8C:9A01:E5DE:3784 (
talk)
20:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)