![]() | A fact from Cervalces scotti appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 March 2007. 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've searched for a public-domain picture to use on this article, but so far I haven't found any. (I've done Google Image searches on "Stag-moose" and "Cervalces scotti", which turned up excellent drawings like this one from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and this one from the American Museum of Natural History, but since neither of those is a US governmental entity, I don't believe the images are in the public domain. If any ambitious editor can find a drawing or picture that we can use, that would be an excellent addition.-- HughGRex 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned that the section "Evolution" contains behavioural information which is presented as fact rather than conjecture. This is obviously not appropriate in an article about an animal which went extinct in the Pleistocene. The source cited for this section (
[1]) appears to have been equally questionable in quality, to be incomplete (one subheading lacks text), and to have the same writing style as the quoted source, leading me to suspect that the Wikipedia article and this source share the same author. This section needs to be rewritten, with the editor relying on reputable sources.
124.148.242.21 (
talk)
13:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No action necessary. The article was moved to Stag-moose and a separate article Cervalces latifrons has been created. Per some of the comments, Cervalces should be a stub for the genus. Cúchullain t/ c 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Cervalces → Cervalces scotti – The article is about the species Cervalces scotti and not the genus Cervalces. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Seems like it leaves one species out. [2] I think a better move would be to include some info on the other species here too. If it had been monotypic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Single-species_articles FunkMonk ( talk) 12:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If this particular Megafauna had a snout or muzzle similar to a modern deer or elk versus a moose, then why are we using an image that looks like a moose? Why is this not going to be confusing to general readers? Evenrød ( talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The recent literature seems to give preference to the term "elk moose" over "stag-moose" for Cervalces scotti. Would it make sense to instead title this article "elk moose"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Cervalces scotti appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 March 2007. 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've searched for a public-domain picture to use on this article, but so far I haven't found any. (I've done Google Image searches on "Stag-moose" and "Cervalces scotti", which turned up excellent drawings like this one from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and this one from the American Museum of Natural History, but since neither of those is a US governmental entity, I don't believe the images are in the public domain. If any ambitious editor can find a drawing or picture that we can use, that would be an excellent addition.-- HughGRex 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned that the section "Evolution" contains behavioural information which is presented as fact rather than conjecture. This is obviously not appropriate in an article about an animal which went extinct in the Pleistocene. The source cited for this section (
[1]) appears to have been equally questionable in quality, to be incomplete (one subheading lacks text), and to have the same writing style as the quoted source, leading me to suspect that the Wikipedia article and this source share the same author. This section needs to be rewritten, with the editor relying on reputable sources.
124.148.242.21 (
talk)
13:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No action necessary. The article was moved to Stag-moose and a separate article Cervalces latifrons has been created. Per some of the comments, Cervalces should be a stub for the genus. Cúchullain t/ c 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Cervalces → Cervalces scotti – The article is about the species Cervalces scotti and not the genus Cervalces. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Seems like it leaves one species out. [2] I think a better move would be to include some info on the other species here too. If it had been monotypic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Single-species_articles FunkMonk ( talk) 12:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
If this particular Megafauna had a snout or muzzle similar to a modern deer or elk versus a moose, then why are we using an image that looks like a moose? Why is this not going to be confusing to general readers? Evenrød ( talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The recent literature seems to give preference to the term "elk moose" over "stag-moose" for Cervalces scotti. Would it make sense to instead title this article "elk moose"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)