A fact from Pilosans of the Caribbean appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have a suggestion - since all the species except those of Trinidad are sloths, how about cutting out Trinidad and giving the article a title more accurately reflecting its content, such as "Sloths of the Caribbean"? Or perhaps cut out Escudo de Veraguas as well, as make it "Extinct Megalonychid Sloths of the Caribbean"? WolfmanSF ( talk) 06:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
We currently have articles for Habanocnus and Miocnus that apparently need to be redirected to Acratocnus. WolfmanSF ( talk) 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not happy with the delinking of all the species. Even if it's true that those are all unlikely to get articles, which I don't necessarily believe, the species articles should redirect to (an appropriate section of) the genus article and it is good to have them linked here for easy navigation. Ucucha 12:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that all the Antilles sloths are monophyletic, so it seems strange that every other sloth family has an article bar Megalocnidae. @ WolfmanSF: given that you are the main contributor to this article, do you think of the proposal? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
A fact from Pilosans of the Caribbean appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I have a suggestion - since all the species except those of Trinidad are sloths, how about cutting out Trinidad and giving the article a title more accurately reflecting its content, such as "Sloths of the Caribbean"? Or perhaps cut out Escudo de Veraguas as well, as make it "Extinct Megalonychid Sloths of the Caribbean"? WolfmanSF ( talk) 06:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
We currently have articles for Habanocnus and Miocnus that apparently need to be redirected to Acratocnus. WolfmanSF ( talk) 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not happy with the delinking of all the species. Even if it's true that those are all unlikely to get articles, which I don't necessarily believe, the species articles should redirect to (an appropriate section of) the genus article and it is good to have them linked here for easy navigation. Ucucha 12:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that all the Antilles sloths are monophyletic, so it seems strange that every other sloth family has an article bar Megalocnidae. @ WolfmanSF: given that you are the main contributor to this article, do you think of the proposal? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)