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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not a misspelling. The article also cites Nieto et al. 2020, which has Scelidotherium in Mylodontidae in the title (which implies Scelidotheriinae is a subfamily), but calls Scelidotheriinae a family (not subfamily) in the abstract (I haven't found full text of Nieto). Perhaps there studies post-Presslee arguing for subfamily status, but the inconsistency in the Nieto abstract makes it a poor source, and I suspect family vs. subfamily isn't really something that Nieto addresses. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Plantdrew (
talk •
contribs)
16:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Changes to taxonomy articles are done by following the secondary sources, not the primary research papers. This helps to ensure that the change is one that is accepted by a significant portion of the scientific community. Also, I'm going to relist this so that appropriate WikiProject(s) can be notified.
UtherSRG(talk)01:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment "Misspelling" is obviously a bogus reason. idae/inae indicates family/subfamily status respectively. Having had a look on scholar, the usage of "inae" seems more prevalent in literature over the last several years, but it doesn't seem hugely pressing to change it, given the current in-flux state of sloth taxonomy.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not a misspelling. The article also cites Nieto et al. 2020, which has Scelidotherium in Mylodontidae in the title (which implies Scelidotheriinae is a subfamily), but calls Scelidotheriinae a family (not subfamily) in the abstract (I haven't found full text of Nieto). Perhaps there studies post-Presslee arguing for subfamily status, but the inconsistency in the Nieto abstract makes it a poor source, and I suspect family vs. subfamily isn't really something that Nieto addresses. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Plantdrew (
talk •
contribs)
16:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Changes to taxonomy articles are done by following the secondary sources, not the primary research papers. This helps to ensure that the change is one that is accepted by a significant portion of the scientific community. Also, I'm going to relist this so that appropriate WikiProject(s) can be notified.
UtherSRG(talk)01:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment "Misspelling" is obviously a bogus reason. idae/inae indicates family/subfamily status respectively. Having had a look on scholar, the usage of "inae" seems more prevalent in literature over the last several years, but it doesn't seem hugely pressing to change it, given the current in-flux state of sloth taxonomy.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.