![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is not only about cloning, but it is only about the woolly mammoth. Therefore we need to come up with a more precise title. Woolly mammoth recreation? De-extinction? Resurrection? FunkMonk ( talk) 10:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved. See some fair agreement below following discussion to rename this article as proposed. If the "de-" word gains momentum, then this title might be revisited in the future. For now, this request is granted. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Mammoth cloning → Revival of the woolly mammoth – This is not only about cloning (various other methods are considered), but only about the woolly mammoth (the only species that has frozen specimens preserved). Woolly mammoth resurrection/recreation could also be alternative options if de-extinction is too informal. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I find all of the proposed terms troublesome.
- Cloning suggests making an exact copy while the bulk of the article discusses proposals to modify the elephant genome.
- Resurrection suggests reviving a frozen carcass that was recovered from the permafrost.
- De-extinction is poorly defined as it does not appear in any of the dictionaries that I consulted (including Oxford and Merriam-Webster). It could mean the reverse of the process of extinction, a formerly dwindling population that grows again.
- Recreation suggests that mammoths were originally created. Evolutionists will object to that notion.
My proposal would be restoration (or reconstruction) because all the proposals discussed in the article intend to use what is still available of the mammoth genome in the contemporary elephant to restore (or reconstruct) the mammoth genome.
Jprins66 ( talk) 09:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You have a point there. I think that "Revival of the woolly mammoth" is the actually best suggestion so far. Woolly mammoth revival is more concise but sounds like an observation. Placing revival up front gives a bit more deliberate action.
Thinking a bit more, why not plagiarize Harvard and use Woolly mammoth revival projects or Woolly mammoth rival proposals? Wouldn't that cover the contents of the article quite accurately?
Jprins66 ( talk) 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I am quite okay with this, thanks. Jprins66 ( talk) 14:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The current title 'Revival of the woolly mammoth' suggests that the article documents a technological feat that has already been achieved. I suggest 'Proposed revival of the woolly mammoth' to better reflect the nature of the topic, as I think this would lead to less confusion in people who come across this for the first time. DigitalHamster ( talk) 20:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is not only about cloning, but it is only about the woolly mammoth. Therefore we need to come up with a more precise title. Woolly mammoth recreation? De-extinction? Resurrection? FunkMonk ( talk) 10:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved. See some fair agreement below following discussion to rename this article as proposed. If the "de-" word gains momentum, then this title might be revisited in the future. For now, this request is granted. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Mammoth cloning → Revival of the woolly mammoth – This is not only about cloning (various other methods are considered), but only about the woolly mammoth (the only species that has frozen specimens preserved). Woolly mammoth resurrection/recreation could also be alternative options if de-extinction is too informal. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I find all of the proposed terms troublesome.
- Cloning suggests making an exact copy while the bulk of the article discusses proposals to modify the elephant genome.
- Resurrection suggests reviving a frozen carcass that was recovered from the permafrost.
- De-extinction is poorly defined as it does not appear in any of the dictionaries that I consulted (including Oxford and Merriam-Webster). It could mean the reverse of the process of extinction, a formerly dwindling population that grows again.
- Recreation suggests that mammoths were originally created. Evolutionists will object to that notion.
My proposal would be restoration (or reconstruction) because all the proposals discussed in the article intend to use what is still available of the mammoth genome in the contemporary elephant to restore (or reconstruct) the mammoth genome.
Jprins66 ( talk) 09:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You have a point there. I think that "Revival of the woolly mammoth" is the actually best suggestion so far. Woolly mammoth revival is more concise but sounds like an observation. Placing revival up front gives a bit more deliberate action.
Thinking a bit more, why not plagiarize Harvard and use Woolly mammoth revival projects or Woolly mammoth rival proposals? Wouldn't that cover the contents of the article quite accurately?
Jprins66 ( talk) 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I am quite okay with this, thanks. Jprins66 ( talk) 14:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The current title 'Revival of the woolly mammoth' suggests that the article documents a technological feat that has already been achieved. I suggest 'Proposed revival of the woolly mammoth' to better reflect the nature of the topic, as I think this would lead to less confusion in people who come across this for the first time. DigitalHamster ( talk) 20:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)