Talk:Acinonyx kurteni

Mammals Low‑importance

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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?

Might be redirected to Scientific_misconduct#China or whatever is appropriate. Cheetah#Genetics.2C_evolution.2C_and_classification should get a warning note. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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and also the taxobox, as the species is no longer valid.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On second thought, it may be important to keep a record that that image is for an imaginary animal, since people will probably find other copies of it somewhere else online. Anyway, it's worth discussing. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:AC8C:9A01:E5DE:3784 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]