Talk:Thylacoleonidae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Consistency

Why do "Marsupial Lion" and "Marsupial lion" refer to two different articles? If "Marsupial Lion" refers only to carnifex, presumably "Marsupial lion" should as well. Unless there is a Wikipedia policy contradicting, it seems like common sense to me. If there is a reason, I will respect it.— 96.225.22.67 (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with what the capitalization means. Capitalized (Marsupial Lion), it refers to just the one species. In lower case (marsupial lion), it refers to all of the members of the family (in this case). All of the species in Thylacoleonidae are marsupial lions, but only T. carnifex is the Marsupial Lion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems rather odd to me. Both of these ought to point to a single disambiguation if it's a difference as capitalization, as with any other articles sharing a name. The two articles sharing the same name need to have (species) and (family) as part of their titles. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of any other species/family that uses a parenthetical disambiguation for this purpose. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See
Sepia (subgenus). Ideally, typing "marsupial lion" and "Marsupial Lion" should take you to the same place. This technical difference is so minute and trivial that it makes sense to make a disambiguation page. An alternate fix (unfortunately impossible for Sepia) is to use the actual taxon name instead of the common name. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah... but both Sepia articles are taxa, not common names. Apples and oranges. the family page acts as a disambiguation already, so there's no need for a separate page. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No concensous has been reached here.

talk) 15:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

None to change it to what *you* want either. so leave it as it was when you found it. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No not *me*, *Everyone*. What is your problem? Aren't you here to help? That's why I am here. So if you are, reply to me and stop ignoring my comments. I am not leaving it the way I found it, because the way I found it is incorrect and the logic for keeping it this way is also incorrect, which I have pointed out to you and asked you to reply but you do not and instead choose to edit war with everyone. I have just now noticed you are an administrator, so act like one and discuss.
talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I talked about this yesterday at lunch with a friend, and he agreed with both ways I tried to handle it. Just thought I'd share that. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be left the way it is because creating a disambiguation page is pointless and is not any more productive or less confusing. The family page acts as the disambigution page already because it clearly explains the difference and provides a link. And all of Wikipedia is case sensitive, UtherSRG is right about which cases mean what. In the future though Uther, could you explain in your edit summary why you reverted edits instead of just using the generic revert tool. Because I know as an editor if my good faith edits are simply reverted without explanation I can get very angry. That seems to be what has happened here. Also, it's annoying if someone mentions "consensus" when there clearly there is none except one person's opinion. I agree that this page should stay redirected to the family page but I can see why this issue has annoyed a couple people. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new problem I noticed though, should "Marsupial Lions" be redirected to "Marsupial Lion"? I think it probably should. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I looked at the history and decided to change it so that's done. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't you have mixed things up LonelyMarble.
talk) 06:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope. Here's my discussion. You're wrong. I've given the explanation already. I'm not going to continually repeat myself. I will continually make the right edit, as long as you continually make the wrong edit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not wrong, you are wrong and your failure to discuss the issue and edit war has proven this. I already pointed out how your logic was wrong and you have not defended your logic because you are wrong. You need not repeat yourself, you need instead provide a correct logic for your preference and behave appropriately. I have already asked you to discuss and not edit war but you quite evidently have no interest in abiding by wikipedia policies and this is not my fault. So again, reply to my comments left on your talkpage.
talk) 13:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No. It takes (at least) two to edit war. If there's one going on, you're in it as well. I have provided logic. You have refuted it, but that doesn't make my logic incorrect. The capitalized name referes to the species, the lower case refers to the family. See right whale. when there was believed to be only one species, it was capitalized. Now that we understand there are more than one species, it is lower case. However, in that case, each species was given a name more specific than just "Right Whale". However, the Marsupial Lion fails to have this distinction. The family page, though, calls out the difference between the family of marsupial lions, and the one species called the Marsupial Lion. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are the cause of the edit war and you adopt this attitude with everyone not just me! I have not refused your logic at all I have just highlighted it's underlying flaw and this is what makes it incorrect. And your comparison to the right whales cannot even be used as it is different altogether. I have already told you the one species is called "marsupial lion". Thalacoleo carnifex is the marsupial lion. Again, stop warring and reply to the comments left on your talkpage by me which clearly point out your argument is invalid. Accept this fact and do not edit war.

talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I have replied here. I don not need to reply on my talk page. Please do not revert again. The Marsupial Lion is the species T. carnifex. It beloongs to the marsupial lion family, Thylacoleonidae. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you do because you have ignored me pointing out the flaw with your logic. If you are convinved your logic is correct then refute the points I made stating your logic is incorrect on your talk page. The marsupial lion is the marsupial lion, so once again reply and do not revert.
talk) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I have refuted the logic here: the family page serves as a disambiguation page. *You* should stop changing it from where it was *before* the discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Cazique above, I changed it so "Marsupial Lions" redirects to "Marsupial Lion" and "Marsupial lions" redirects to Thylacoleonidae. Note the capitalization difference in lions/Lions, which is the crux of the problem here. In the same manner, "Marsupial lion" redirects to Thylacoleonidae and "Marsupial Lion" has its own page. UtherSRG has already explained this and her conclusions regarding capitalization are standard on Wikipedia as far as I have seen in my experience.

I think what would be helpful is if someone could provide a source on this article page to back the statement that any species of this family is often called a "marsupial lion". If that source can't be found then Cazique may have a good point in that when someone says "marsupial lion" it almost always refers to the one species. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LonelyMarble, I already have made you aware of the fact that you did not do as you are saying and make "marsupial lions" redirect to "Marsupial Lion", so why are you continuing to say this? I wont repeat myself again and instead ask you to read my comment directed to you above. And my point is correct, the documentaries on the marsupial lion refer exclusively to the species "marsupial lion". Plural: Marsupial Lions/marsupial lions/Marsupial lions should redirect to the family, and singular: Marsupial Lion/marsupial lion/Marsupial lion should redirect to the species.
talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is hopefully a clear and complete explanation so please read it so this silly edit war can stop:
Wikipedia is
marsupial lions. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You did not need to explain this to me if it was directed at me because I already know this. "Marsupial lion" is not the common name of the "Thylacoleonidae" family and the "Thylacoleonidae" article could not be named "Marsupial lion". "Marsupial lion" refers only to the species "Thylacoleo carnifex". I do not even need to argue the point on marsupial lions as you have contradicted yourself in your comment (no offence). You said "Wikipedia article titles are also always singular, and the plural forms redirect to the singular forms. This means
talk) 02:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
UtherSRG has already explained how capitalization matters in this instance at the beginning of this discussion but you either choose to ignore it or did not read it: "This is consistent with what the capitalization means. Capitalized (Marsupial Lion), it refers to just the one species. In lower case (marsupial lion), it refers to all of the members of the family (in this case). All of the species in Thylacoleonidae are marsupial lions, but only T. carnifex is the Marsupial Lion." I gave the lengthy case sensitive explanation above to you because you seem to not clearly grasp what capitalization means. I also suggest you stop changing this page until the dispute is resolved because you have already broken
Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Sigh, I said no offence so why have you taken offence. I can tell you have taken offence from the tone of your comment. I already have given you a lengthy explanation but you still do not understand. Again you contradicted yourself by using the plural form. Honestly just read my comment and understand, how can you not? You do not need to tell me of the policy as I am quite aware and did not wish to get in an edit war over this and took a number of measures to prevent this including asking him to discuss instead of edit warring, notififying third parties about this and continuing to ask for him to reply to the points I raise. So please don't get on my case especially since I have tried to do the right thing when he quite clearly hasn't.
talk) 07:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not taking offense I'm just getting annoyed because you continue to revert edits and it appears we are not understanding each other at all. You seem to feel capitalization does not matter but it definitely does, I've seen many other examples of this, such as
US off the top of my head. LonelyMarble (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's totally different to this. Look I have already said and now I will repeat myself.Singular: Marsupial Lion/Marsupial lion/marsupial lion are all the same thing, the same animal, the species Thylacoleo carnifex. And less comonly Plural:Marsupial Lions/Marsupial lions/marsupial lions all refer to the family Thylacoleonidae or could be used to as a plural form describing the animal (Thylacoleo carnifex). In any case, marsupial lion should redirect to Marsupial Lion as priority and plural form marsupial lions redirect to the family.
talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is a reputable source from the Australian Museum that uses the same capitalization as I and UtherSRG have explained. It is also a good explanation of the difference from the one species and the family as a whole and shows the reason behind the capitalization difference: http://www.austmus.gov.au/mammals/fossil/move_over_sabre.htm Note that the one species is capitalized while the whole family is not. This sentence should explain it all: "The pinnacle of marsupial 'lion' evolution was the most recent species, Thylacoleo carnifex, a widely distributed and common find in fossil deposits across the length and breadth of Australia." "marsupial lion" in that sentence is clearly referring to the whole family. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this reference does nothing for your argument. Throughout the whole article the family is referred to in plural form and the species is the "marsupial lion". The quote you provided only says it in singular form as it would not make sense to have it in plural form. Please take time to read and understand what I am saying.
talk) 07:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's one more example before I go: There's no difference between marsupial lion and the feline example I gave. In both cases when you talk about the whole family you would either say "the feline family" or "the felines", just as you would say "marsupial lion family" or "the marsupial lions". An article about felines would use the plural form almost the whole time but the Wikipedia article title would be singular. The same is true for marsupial lion. Every time the article mentions the one species it capitalizes it to Marsupial Lion and when it talks about the family it uses the lowercase. So capitalization matters for this particular problem. The plurality really does not matter at all. I think the major point I'm trying to make is that as a basic rule Wikipedia article titles are never plural and should never be redirected to different articles based on plurality (plurals always should redirect to singles), but they can sometimes be redirected based on capitalization, which is the case here. LonelyMarble (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes again you help me with your comment "the marsupial lions". Come on please just read what I have explained to you, you should understand. There is no animal called "feline" so it is very different from the "marsupial lion". How can you not understand? I don't get it. I have explained why, but you still don't understand and push the captilization as a basis for your argument. I also don't appreciate you sticking that warning on my talkpage as I have already stated that I have tried everything I can think of as prevention. And you sticking that on my talkpage is just seen as a personal attack as I already said I tried preventing this. Plus you reverted my edit, not the other way around. So please discuss and let's not act childish about this situation.
talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Two things that seem not to be on anyone's radar: we should remember that consistency is not for everyone a virtue in itself, but only inasfar as it helps orient the Wikipedia reader. And, second, the criterion for article titles is, "How will the moderately well-prepared Wikipedia reader search for this information." All else is often personal vanity. --Wetman (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thankyou. I am the second, and I was looking for the "Marsupial Lion" but I did not bother using capitals as most people probably don't, and instead I was taken to the family "Thylacoleonidae". I was not looking for the family, I was looking for the animal. Thylacoleo carnifex is the marsupial lion.
talk) 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Edit warring

Having examined [1] users UtherSRG and Cazique have engaged in an unacceptable revert war. Both of you have received warning on your talk pages, so I have made a formal report to WP:3RR. Before anyone contributes further to this dispute, a vote needs to be made to establish a consensus. Once this is established the other side must respect this.

As I have not been a contributor to these pages until today I will refrain from voting. Remember, revert warring is not acceptable on wikipedia. Mark t young (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote below (See above two topics)

  • Disambiguate (options must be discussed if consensus is reached)
    1. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) - Using a link at the beginning of each article, rather than a separate disambiguation page.[reply]
  • Repoint the redirects
    Marsupial Lion
  • Leave it be (
    WP:MaM
    , which this article falls under.
    1. marsupial lion, with redirects as above.[reply
      ]
    2. Marsupial Lion.
      And something similar on the Marsupial Lion page. This would effectively act as a disambiguation page without having to change anything as it is right now. I have added a redirect hatnote to this page to see how you guys like it. It can obviously be taken down depending on the decision here. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • JoJan (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • T.carnifex (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) - I can't be bothered getting involved in the above argument, as it seems to be winding down, so I shall put in my two bob here: marsupial lions, a phrase that can be used in the singular, refers to a family of extinct carnivorous diprotodontid marsupials. Marsupial Lion is a common name referring to Thylacoleo carnifex. There is a difference in capitalisation, and the search should be case sensitive. A hatnote as suggested by LonelyMarble may be necessary, to aid the "moderately well-prepared Wikipedia reader." T.carnifex (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird people sorted this long ago.[reply
    ]
  • Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)I don't think there is a perfect solution here. Capitalization can change the meaning but people typing in searches are not always going to be cautious about capitalization, nor are many going to be aware that Marsupial Lion and Marsupial lion are necessarily two different things. And there are probably other Marsupial lion species deserving of the common name "Marsupial Lion" except that they aren't as popular as the species that is commonly called Marsupial Lion. That said, in this case I think the best solution is the one suggested by LonelyMarble, which resolves any misunderstandings quickly at the top of each page.[reply]

    • As requested by Mark, I have set up a poll. Vote by signing using the following code: *#~~~~ (asterisk, pound, and four tildes) Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified all recent editors of
    Marsupial Lion of the poll, so that an appropriate polling occurs. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm curious to know what your stance actually is, if it's neither of the two listed above. All I know is you didn't like the disambiguation methods nor the current method-- I have yet to learn what your suggestion is. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, see
    Wikipedia:DR#Conduct_a_survey. This is a legitimate way to gather popular opinions and better understand the situation so that a consensus is easier to reach. If you don't see your option you would like to vote for, please add it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Why did you even make this straw poll without knowing what was going on then? Extreme care should be taken when making them and they should not be made prematurely. If you read, you would see my stance is that "marsupial lion" should redirect to "Marsupial Lion". Are you kidding me! Why have you even started this contentious poll if you did not even make your self aware of this fact. This has been the whole reason for the edit warrings. I'm sorry, I can't be any more nice about it and I know you will definately take offense to what I have said. But honestly I don't care any more because you did the wrong thing in even starting the poll based on your comment. Please read or re-read
    talk) 16:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'll add this option, since Cazique hasn't. Cazique - it's always ok to add another option. Notice Bob did when he changed his vote. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did an edit in the Marsupial Lion redirect, but did not recognized this diskussion. Sorry. After thinking a while think that all links M(m)arsupial L(l)ion(s) should go to the
    Thylacoleo carnifex, the most famous species, I would use the common name Pleistocene marsupial lion, as it is the only pleistocene species. I think a distinguishing between capitalized and non capitalized forms is not good, as it seems to me that here is still no consense how to handle that in general in the engl. wiki.--Altaileopard (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I reverted your edit until we reach concensus here. And I disagree with you. By
    WP:MaM policy, species common names are capitalized, and all higher taxa common names are not. The common name for T. carnifex is therefore the Marsupial Lion, and the common name for the family is th emarsupial lion family, or the marsupial lions. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Of course you disagree with him, you have been disagreeing with everyone over the whole history of your edit wars. I agree with your above comment. This comment is correct, and it does not go against my redirect or anyone else who has redirected the page to
    talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    In order to help resolve this discussion, I'm trying to find a redirect similar to this one. So far, the only one I've found is

    BLEACH, which redirects to Bleach (manga) instead of Bleach. I was hoping to see the discussion about this disambiguation, but found none. However, note that if the user types "bleach", they can still navigate through disambiguation links to Bleach (manga). Does anyone know of an instance that has a discussion attached to it? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    For two examples off the top of my head like you mentioned:
    US redirects to United States rather than how Us redirects to US (disambiguation). I don't think either of those have a discussion though. Here is a list of page titles with multiple capitalizations that I got from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Page names that only differ by capitalization. That list is pretty old I think but many of the articles are unchanged and it proves this is a common problem. There does not seem to be strict rules on what to do except that it recommends at the least creating hatnotes/dablinks at the top of both articles, which is what I am suggesting for this situation. Since the current capitalizations and redirects seem to adhere with conventions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials I don't think we need to change it at all. Maybe some other people that participate in that or related Wikiprojects should give their opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Makes sense. Unfortunately, those are acronyms (most people don't search in all caps unless they are looking for the acronym). However, in accordance with your latest comment, would anyone be opposed to leaving the redirects in an "as is" state and adding disambiguating links to the head of both articles? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I would be. Even though hatnotes make an improvement, it is still an improvement on an incorrect redirect. I have also provided hatnotes for the case in which we correctly redirect it to "Marsupial Lion". This redirect should be used with the newly added hatnotes as a compromise.
    talk) 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Actually I dont care to much about the details, but I think the correct and most specific common name for T. carnifex is Pleistocene marsupial lion. (See for example: S. Wroe, T. J. Myers, R. T. Wells and A. Gillespie: Estimating the weight of the Pleistocene marsupial lion, Thylacoleo carnifex (Thylacoleonidae:Marsupialia): implications for the ecomorphology of a marsupial super-predator and hypotheses of impoverishment of Australian marsupial carnivore faunas. online)--Altaileopard (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is perhaps a more accurate common name, but changing the title of the Marsupial Lions page won't solve this debate. There would still be redirection issues, because people would still search Marsupial Lion/Marsupial Lions/marsupial lion/marsupial lions looking for T. carnifex as it's the name most often used in popular science on television and in magazines. It's rarely referred to specifically as the Pleistocene marsupial lion. That's the way I see it anyway, feel free to correct me. T.carnifex (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that the redirect of marsupial lion to Thylacoleonidae is "incorrect". We are talking about common names here. There is no true "objective" measure of what a common name is, the way there (usually) is with Latin names. Common names are determined by common usage. And we do not have a poll of everyone who refers to Thylacoleonidae or T. carnifex to determine how everyone refers to them via common names. Sometimes we can resort to an accepted source, such as Groves. But that is no help here.
    In any case, I think that the other species within Thylacoleonidae, and the family group itself, have a legitimate objective claim to the common name "marsupial lion". After all, they are all marsupials, and the genus names for all genera within Thylacoleonidae contain "leo". As does the family name istelf. So even within Latin naming conventions, I do not think we can say it is incorrect to use "marsupial lion" for species within Thylacoleonidae besides T. carnifex. I should point out that if it is incorrect to use "marsupial lion" for species other than T. carnifex then this is not just a dismabiguation issue. The text of the articles for Thylacoleonidae, Thylacoleo and Priscileo all make reference to use of the term "marsupial lion" to refer to animals other than T. carnifex, as do the articles for 2 Wakaleo species.
    So we have a situation in which (ignoring caps for the moment), someone searching for "marsupial lion" may well be looking for either "Thylacoleonidae" or "T. carnifex". They may even be seaching for some other species, but these are the two most likely targets. As I stated above, I would oppose having the capitalization of the "L" in lion making a difference as to which page gets directed to. But here we have a case where the MaM policy (which I personally disagree with) is to capitalize species common names. And there is ambiguity as to whether a search for "marsupial lion" (ignoring capitalization) intends the family or the most popular species within the family. So given the MaM policy, I think the best solution is for the capital "L" to direct to the species and small "l" to direct to the family - along with LonelyMarble's suggestion for the hatnotes, so that if someone lands in the family when intending the species, or vice versa, they can get where they intended immediately.Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like to me, you are trying to change the facts becaue you don't agree with them. Because the fact is the "Marsupial Lion" is the species Thylacoleo carnifex. And marsupial lion should redirect to it as it is the same word just without capitals. I am from Australia and I know that anyone searching for "marsupial lion" is talking about the actual "marsupial lion". All the documentaries about the animal have been about T.carnifex, or have referred to them and shown images of them. I'm sorry to be blunt, but stop confusing the facts if you do not know them. If someone was searching for other marsupial lion species, they would search "marsupial lions". So please do not confuse the issue.
      talk) 04:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • You're kidding me right?! You still continue to confuse the issue over and over. Come on!
      talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    "Because the fact is the "Marsupial Lion" is the species Thylacoleo carnifex"......
    In scientific literature, which is that kind of reference, we should follow, there is not an "actual marsupial lion". That is only true for unscientific oversimplificated books or perhaps for papers, books, publications ect., which are constricted to the pleistocene age. As we describe here many marsupial lion species, like
    Marsupial Lion (T. carnifex) to Pleitocene marsupial lion, as it would be more specific and less confusing. The first sentence in Thylacoloenidae article should contain something like this: The most famous of all marsupial lion species was the Pleistocene marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex), which is often reffered as the marsupial lion. But that is probably more relevant for the article T. carnifex, so I will post that also on that talk page--Altaileopard (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Resolution?

    It seems that a significant majority are in agreement: The plural links redirect to the singular links, the capitalization indicates species, and lower case indicates the family. Cazique and Bob are the only holdouts. Who's going to say we're resolved? - UtherSRG (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll second that. I think both sides have been represented. I also think the poll has given an indication as to where the common consensus is. Where do we go after this, if everyone isn't happy to call it? Mediation? Arbitration? T.carnifex (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually Bob said he's fine with leaving it as is and disambiguating by adding hatnotes to the top of both articles, which I think everyone is in agreement with. So as far as I know everyone but Cazique is okay with the decision to keep the redirects and capitalizations as they are right now and add hatnotes to the top of both articles directing the user to the other article. We can agree what those hatnotes should say. Here are the ones that I wrote up:

    Top of Thylacoleonidae:

    "Marsupial lion" redirects here. For the species Thylacoleo carnifex, see
    Marsupial Lion.

    Top of Marsupial Lion:

    This article is about the species Thylacoleo carnifex. For the family known as marsupial lions, see Thylacoleonidae.

    LonelyMarble (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Amen, LonelyMarble. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Per my comment above the only lingering question - whether marsupial lion may somehow actually be an inappropriate term for species other than T. carnifex - has been definitely satisfied.Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry ,but I am not fine with that. The "L" - "l" thing is very confusing in that way.

    Top of Thylacoleonidae:

    "Marsupial lion" redirects here. For the species Thylacoleo carnifex, see Pleistocene Marsupial Lion.

    --Altaileopard (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These unproductive discussion would be needless, if we call T. carnifex Pleistocene (M)marsupial (L)lion. So please note
    Talk:Marsupial Lion#Moving to Pleistocene marsupial lion--Altaileopard (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well, like I said on that discussion page, I'm pretty neutral about renaming it to Pleistocene Marsupial Lion. It would probably get rid of some ambiguity, the only problem is would you have the capitalized Marsupial Lion redirect to Pleistocene Marsupial Lion? If so the article title is somewhat just a superficial thing then, although I agree it would help clarity. If you would have the capitalized version redirect to Thylacoleonidae then that goes against capitalization conventions that have been agreed upon in various animal Wikiprojects so that's not such a good solution either. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that "Marsupial Lion" (capitalized) would have to redirect to "Pleistocene Marsupial Lion" in that case. But if someone is actually capitalizing the "L", there is a reasonably good chance that they are looking for a specific species, especially given the MaM naming convention, and so that should be appropriate.Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it okay if I put the hatnotes back up on the two articles? Everyone seems to be in agreement here. The Pleistocene Marsupial Lion is another issue that can get resolved but I'd like to put the hatnotes back up in the meantime. LonelyMarble (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, go ahead and insert the headnotes (surely a better opposite for "footnotes"? ;-) The Pleistocene discussion can be dealt with separately (and should be discussed on
    Talk:Marsupial Lion). Secret Squïrrel
    , approx 04:25, 9 June 2008 (Earth Standard Time)

    Let me repeat myself

    No concensous has been reached here at all! The words that come to mind when I sum up this discussion are ignorance and stubborness. I am reverting any changes which have been made under the false pretense of "concensous".

    talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    You've already admitted that headnotes would make an improvement. That means all have agreed this is a positive move. Why wouldn't you leave them? T.carnifex (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because as I have already mentioned leaving these hatnotes provided by LonelyMarble are to strengthen keeping the redirect to Thylacoleonidae. We can add the hatnotes when a concensous is reached, and this can only be achieved if you actually reply to points I raise and do not choose to sidestep points.
    talk) 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But we've all agreed it strengthens the article? You're starting to sound more concerned about "winning" than "improving." T.carnifex (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one likes a smartass, and that comment does not even comply with what I said. If you are going to be a smartass at least be the first 5 letters of the word "smartass", because your reply shows you are not.
    talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Time to let it go, Cazique. You're whining. You aren't making headway. You're being destructive and not constructive. Please cease being a nuisance before you get reported to an admin who isn't involved. Please stop reverting the headnotes, they belong. The decision has been reached that you are in the wrong. You have not proven that your edits are better than the edit the rest of us want to make. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't make me laugh.
    talk) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Was this intended as a constructive comment to help generate the consensus that you (and only you) seem to believe has not been reached yet?Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Go and answer the question I asked on your talkpage, why should I reply to puppets?
    talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    From WP policy:"The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." You clearly don't know what you are taking about and are just being disruptive.Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. See this is what happens when you all decide to comment about me instead of addressing the points I raise, whenever I ask the hard question or raise the hard facts, you all go running. It's impossible to reach a concensous when I have to deal with users who are unwilling to answer.

    talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    From your comment when reverting me: "Tag-team ownership will not do yourself any favours. Also any third parties might want to take note that some editors have been acting as meatpuppets. Do the research you will see." Just because several people agree with each other and not with you does not imply meatpuppetry.Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone sounds scared.
    talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No. Just insulted. See WP:Civility.Rlendog (talk)

    I've reported Cazique for 3RR violation on this article and

    WP:ANI for eir behavior here. Some support from those of you who agree would be helpful, since i've been dismissed by one admin on WP:ANI because of my previous block on this subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I'm going to try to quickly summarize the current state of the discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    1. Most of us seem to agree that hatnotes on both articles are a good idea.
    2. Cazique is not fine with it, because he sees the hatnotes as a sort of victory in a war. He is now blocked for being disagreeable and violating the revert rule.
    3. Altairleopard says the lowercase "L" looks like a capital "i" and wishes to see the
      Marsupial lion article renamed either Pleistocene Marsupial Lion or Pleistocene marsupial lion
      so that it is clear whether the word is Lion or iion, and proposes that if we did this, then this discussion's solution would immediately be obvious.
    I think I got all that right. With so many opinions, it can be hard to keep them straight.
    To Altairleopard: This discussion is about the redirect. What you're talking about is a separate issue in itself. Renaming an article would leave the redirect, as well as a new redirect,
    Marsupial lion, in which case the discussion would probably get even more heated than it has been. Renaming the page to Thlacoleonidae carnifex would do this as well. I'm not advising we do either of the two. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    first of all, I think a hatnote, which links to the right article is good in every case. As i already mentioned, I still think Pleistocene M(m)arsupial L(l)ion is the best name for the Thylacoleo carnifex article as T. crassidentatus for example is also a Marsupial Lion. But I feel also okay with the name Marsupial Lion for this article (perhaps we can mention in the first line that another name is Pleistocene marsupial lion). What I actually do not like, is that Marsupial Lion and Marsupial lion lead to different articles but I think this problem is not so rare and should be solved perhaps in general. What is about Clouded leopard? does it mean N. nebulosa or Neofelis? Or do you want to write Clouded Leopard for the species and Clouded leopard for the genus? and what is if a similar case happens with a species, in which the common name consists only of one singel word. What I want to say: I think this capitalization rule for distingiushing higher and lower taxa with identical common names is not very logical and perhaps not sufficient in every case. Therefore I would prefer always names, which are specific enough or (if there is none) the latin names for different animal articles with identical common names. But if you all do not agree, I don´t want to be at strife with you and follow your decision. --Altaileopard (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, Altairleopard. I'm on the same page with you now. I would support the page move, so long as everyone else is fine with the decision. As far as the capital and lowercase leading to different articles-- that's the whole thing that started this debate, and I'm really not sure it's resolved, so to speak. Both links currently lead to separate articles, even though the titles are the same. I realize that, yes, there might be a technical spelling rule, and yes, WP:MaM might have a ruling on this issue, but neither of those rules address the case of duplicate titles. In all the rest of Wikipedia, articles with the same title (regardless of capitalization) are disambiguated. I haven't examined Clouded leopard yet, but it sounds like it may well have the exact same problem this redirect has.
    If we ever get this sorted out, someone (with some authority) needs to establish a policy for this type of situation.
    I'm glad we at least have the hatnotes now. Now I don't have to stay awake at night wondering how the layperson will find the appropriate ML article.
    Perhaps the solution for the clouded leopard is the same as here...redirecting the links as Uther recommended, and adding hatnotes to both articles, as our consensus says. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What could probably solve this whole problem is if there was more known about the other species in the family Thylacoleonidae. If this was the case we could problably safely redirect the capitalized Marsupial Lion to the family and T. carnifex would absolutely be named either the Latin name or Pleistocene Marsupial Lion. The problem is T. carnifex is the most known about and the most awesome of this family and thus has been given the name "Marsupial Lion" even though all the species in this family are also marsupial lions. Scientific literature seems to understand this problem from the little I have read, it's just that the most common term for T. carnifex is still Marsupial Lion to the average person. But, I think it would be wrong to link marsupial lion to the one species because if anything it is robbing the average reader of knowledge that there is many species of marsupial lions. Moving to Pleistocene Marsupial Lion would not change the problem of marsupial lion and Marsupial Lion redirecting to different places because I think most people would have to agree the capitalized version would still have to redirect to the species. It is weird saying "Marsupial lion redirects here, for the species go to Marsupial Lion" but any average reader should be able to understand the difference very fast if he just reads the hatnote and first sentence of both articles, it's not that confusing. So if the hatnote instead said "for the species go to Pleistocene Marsupial Lion", that's really mostly a superficial change because the redirect problem would not be solved. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes of course, an average reader will see the difference soon. And in every case it is important to tell the reader, that the name MARSUPIAL LION has two meanings. So the issue is mostly about the linking and the definition. I think it is not good to say every Thylacoleonid is a Marsupial lion, but a Marsupial Lion is something else. This is the same word! Moreover there is no consense about capitalisation (see for example
    Snow Leopard#Recent Changes) and if you search for "Marsupial Lion" in google scholar you will proabably not find any Marsupial Lion at all.. only marsupial lions. But I do not care to much about the problem if we should capitalize or not. I am only strictly against the artificial discrimination between capitalized and non capitalized forms of the same word. But as I already said, I will join the majority if you all have a different belief--Altaileopard (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm neutral on this proposal. I'm just glad to see the impossible consensus come to life. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No consensus, no resolution

    Everyone reply here because as of yet you have all failed in giving logical reasons for the keeping of "marsupial lion" as a redirect to Thylacoleonidae due to limited knowledge on the matter. This is what happens when wikipedia lets any ignorant person editing it's pages. I have refuted everything you all have said, have not sidetracked and have called in to question your logics on a number of occasions which you all simply ignore or sidetrack. If anyone actually did take the time to read all your logics they would see how idiotic I have shown them to be. I am not being uncivil I am being truthful, you will not silence me and until you offer reasons with logic I will continue to question this.

    talk) 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I'll make one more attempt. The logical reason for keeping "marsupial lion" as a redirect to Thylacoleonidae is that the term "marsupial lion" can be used for species other than T. carnifex. This is supported by this reliable, verifiable source. [3] You have provided no reliable, verifiable sources (no sources at all in fact) demonstrating that "marsupial lion" can only refer to T. carnifex and not to any other species.Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marsupial Lion category

    As per the discussion on my talk page, I thought I'd open up the question of this category (which I've just restored on all relevant article, bar this one of course!). I'm not sure if it is too taxonomically specific, although I am leaning to that conclusion. On the pages of a family of Devonian placoderms they have a template at the bottom (see Aggeraspis), what do people that about implementing something like that instead? I personally don't mind either way, but if the category is going to be retained then two things:

    • Diprotodontia category becomes redundant as ML is be nested within.
    • And as Uther pointed out it should be Category:Marsupial lions, lower case l to bring it into line with the guidelines for categories.

    Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the Marsupial Lion category is too specific, the older category was sufficient enough. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, I've moved the articles into
    WP:MaM. That being said, I'm not married to this, and simply dumping them in category:prehistoric diprotodonts is sufficient. (Note, that an article should be in the smallest existing category and not any larger one if the larger one fully contains the smaller one. We should not be placing these in both category:prehistoric marsupials and category:diprotodonts, since both of these categories fully contain both category:marsupial lions and category:prehistoric diprotodonts.) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I agree that the articles should not have both
    WP:BOLD on these articles for a while. Secret Squïrrel 03:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yeah, I'm coming to agree with you SS. category:marsupial lions is too specific. One level up is probably just fine. the category will never be more than about a dozen articles, which falls short of the guidelines for a category I believe, while the next larger category is currently far from having too many articles. If we ever fully populate all of the prehistoric diprotodont articles, we can revisit this and see where a better split might be. But I'll leave it as is for now and see what others think. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the other two subcategories of category:prehistoric diprotodonts are suborders, while the category in question is a family. It would be better to keep things broken down at the same level where possible. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree! A Category for marsupial lions is to specific.--Altaileopard (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, seems we have consensus. I did a check, and thylaceonids don't appear to be a member of either suborder, so if no-one objects I'll change the category to Category:Prehistoric diprotodonts. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've deleted the empty category. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chevron

    The word "chevrons" on

    Chevron (anatomy) , not Chevron (insignia). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    New genera for Thylacoleonidae

    I guess that this thesis is very relevant for the article: Diversity and systematics of marsupial lions from the Riversleigh world heritage area and the evolution of the Thylacoleonidae, Gillespie, Anna K, Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, UNSW, 2007 : [4]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thylacoleonidae&oldid=1204692229"