Talk:Woolly mammoth

message: I'm a bit uncertain about this. On one hand, no complete frozen adult specimens are known, making all modern reconstructions partially guesswork and probably erroneous to some extend, so the safest and most reliable would be to have a mounted skeleton in the taxobox. On the other hand, due to cave art and these frozen specimens, the life appearance of this species is probably the best known of any extinct prehistoric animal, though the woolly rhino comes close. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of the reconstructions currently available in Commons are not enough accurate (bad shape of ears, colour of hair too reddish, wrong orientation of tusks, etc.) or with an appropiate size, the logical solution is leave the image of a skeleton. --Rextron (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems most restorations make the ears too big, as the shape and size of the adult ear was only recently known, so I'll just keep the skeleton. The model under description actually isn't too bad, even though it was made in the 1970s. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeleton or life reconstruction in the taxobox? 

message: "The colour of the wool varied through black and brown to pale." Pale what? Pale is a colour intensity qualifier, not a colour in itself. Peridon (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta. (I presume a female would be blonde...) ;-) Peridon (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woolly thinking 

message: I've removed a sentence of biased opinion: "He also notes that the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear; these resources should instead be used to preserve extant elephant species which are endangered." 
Everyone has their own opinion, everyone has their pet projects (sic). Nobody was suggesting recreating mammoths would be cheap or quick. And scientific processes often have tenuous prospects for important successes. Suggesting how the resources "should" be spent is meretricious. The international scientific community has already realized that the world does not have enough resources to save all endangered species, even if it wants, and that decisions must be made about which are desirable and cost-effective. So even if the mammoth argument was something to the effect of "It's easier and cheaper to preserve species that are still living", it isn't necessarily true that the alternative choice would be existing elephants. It might well be that recreating a mammoth has more value than, say, preserving a noxious kind of mosquito. Leptus Froggi (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point slightly, but this is the opinion of respected scientists (and it is attributed to them, not stated as fact), and it has been approved by several reviewers, and most importantly, it is reliably sourced. So you shouldn't just go around removing stuff before bringing it up. Bad manners. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Manners? Well, "manners" would have been writing to my talk page, or explaining your edit in in the Edit Summary, instead of making me guess that you might have responded in talk. The fact that someone with a PhD has an unencyclopedic, biased opinion about how public money should be spent is irrelevant. There are millions of such people, and not every one of them has a right to express their opinion in Wikipedia. If he thought the best use of the money was to save African, but not Asian elephants, could you still imagine his opinion was anything else but his attempt to sway the public on the basis of what he, personally, wants money spent on? Your point of view is so biased, you should not even continue. I'm perfectly willing and able to call in arbitration. I have a special interest with people who manipulate Wikipedia to their own WP:BIAS. Leptus Froggi (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be disruptive just to make a point. You're the one proposing a drastic change of content which has been approved by several other editors during several peer reviews. You bring it up here, and then we talk about it, and if there is support from many others, we can remove it. Not before. You can also make a request for comment or nominate this to be delisted as FA, be my guest. The point is, your own subjective opinion doesn't trump that of many other editors (or the reliable sources), therefore it needs discussion first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear from context that this is one opinion. I don't see what the problem is if it's sourced. If somebody publishes a counter-opinion, that can and should be cited too. Done. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Wikipedia isn't a forum or a chatroom on the main page, any more than it is in Talk. People are making an entirely unwarranted public statement about what money SHOULD be spent on. This is completely illegitimate in an encyclopedia, and it really doesn't matter FunkMonk, whether you and a bunch of your friends banded together to intimidate other editors with your opinion. Leptus Froggi (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia works by consensus and sources. You are working against both. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Restored the content as I see no support for its removal. Vsmith (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "He also notes" makes it pretty clear that the phrases "the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear" are attributed to him. It is not clear that this attribution extends past the semicolon. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add "he suggests these resources". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjective opinion removed 

message: "He also notes that the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear; these resources should instead be used to preserve extant elephant species which are endangered." In the sentence as written it is not entirely clear that the final clause is Lister's opinion. It is easily misunderstood as WIKIPEDIA taking a stance on the proposition.--Khajidha (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The "He also notes" makes it pretty clear that the phrases "the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear" are attributed to him. It is not clear that this attribution extends past the semicolon. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add "he suggests these resources". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting this

message: The name of a tool referenced in this article is in error. "Spear thrower" is called an atlatl (at-a-lay), you wouldn't call a Musket a lead thrower. Josh81884 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Atlatl redirects to spear thrower (I removed leading spaces and added the link in the sentence above)EdwardLane (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Name 

message: Seems someone screwed up the automatic taxobox page? Not sure how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: in what way ? I can't see a change (but I don't know how it looked before or what is incorrect. have you tried looking for the root templates that make up template:speciesbox to see if that is where the change originated? EdwardLane (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no taxa above Mammuthus, and the colour of the template has disappeared. I don't know much about the system. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing happened a couple weeks ago with Titanoboa's automatic taxobox.  It's too easy for a vandal to screw with them, I'd recommend having them locked or something.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Somebody deleted the whole Afrotheria taxobox template in an attempt to remove hyaenadonts from Afrotheria. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the taxobox? 

message: "Local dealers estimate that there are 10 million mammoths still frozen in Siberia" That's a heck of a number to put up there without any reference. Sorry, I don't know how to correctly identify that lack of reference. But, really. You'd think we'd all be tripping over them, large though Siberia may be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.106.190 (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference? 

message: I love this entry, it is beautifully written and laid-out very well.  My favorite part is the  section on Evolution, a subject that can be difficult for non-scientists like me to fully understand.  
I especially liked the second sentence under "Recreating the species": "After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth would be produced. The fact that sperm cells of modern mammals are potent for 15 years at most after deep-freezing is a hindrance to this method."
What I wanted to suggest is the addition of a mammoth-human comparison illustration and one between, say, the largest mammoth, the largest mastodon and the larger dinosaurs.  I like this illustration comparing a human with several types of sauropods at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda (~20% down the page).  Maybe something like that could be done here. 
Thank you for such a great entry. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, would be nice, someone just has to do it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Like that (seems it was uncategorised on Commons for years, so no one found it), yeah, but that one only features the Columbian mammoth, not the woolly one... FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I've now removed the synonyms from the image. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison illustration suggestion 

message: While Willerslev et. al (2014) talk about Arctic botanical diversity being low during the last glacial maximum period (the LGM, 25-15 kyr ago), one can see from their Fig. 2a that it was similarly low for most of the preceding 25 kyr, and that it increased rapidly after 15 kyr ago. So, trends in botanical diversity could not have been a factor in megafaunal extinctions occurring (like the woolly mammoth's) after the LGM.
They do not say that forbs "began to disappear 25-15,000 years ago, in favour of grass"; in fact, thy say forbs were dominant during the LGM ("Continued forb dominance during the LGM implies that similar proportions of forbs and graminoids were maintained through this period, despite the significant decline in floristic diversity"). Their data also does not show a significant decline in forbs relative to grass until the period 5-0 kyr ago (Fig. 4a). So, it does not make sense to suggest based on the data presented that decline of forbs caused or contributed to the extinction of mainland woolly mammoths, who were gone by about 10 kyr ago, and the paper does not propose this; it only speculates about a forb-megafauna feedback loop being disrupted by rising temperatures and/or the disappearance of the megafauna. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It does suggest this under conclusion. The press releases focus even more on that point. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're referring to the Discussion (there isn't any conclusion), where they say, "a feedback loop that maintained nutritious and productive forage and supported large mammalian populations in glacial climate regimes may have been impossible to maintain after deglaciation, as C:N ratios increased with global warming, and the potential breakdown of the megafauna–forb interaction would have been exacerbated by declining mammalian populations". This stops short of actually proposing that decline of forbs caused or contributed to megafaunal extinctions, and in any case, in order to be taken seriously, such a proposal would need to be accompanied by data showing a significant decline in forbs prior to or contemporaneous with the extinctions, and they don't present such data. I haven't seen the press release, but I wouldn't necessarily take that very seriously either, as press releases aren't peer-reviewed, and it may have been written by a PR person. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case (I didn't have the paper with me when I wrote the above), I guess the info could be used differently under habitat or diet. Here is a press release with a different focus: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2014/02/a-smoking-gun-on-the-ice-age-megafauna-extinctions/ FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That press release is absurd. There was no "major loss of plant diversity" during the LGM (again, look at Fig. 2a), and there is no indication whatever that the megafauna "barely survived" this period, and there is no correlation of either changes in plant diversity or decline of forbs with the extinctions. Also, the press release ignores the fact that the great majority of end-Pleistocene/early Holocene extinctions took place outside of the Arctic; these extinctions were not selective for any particular climate zone or group of climate zones.  The press release is pure hot air and should be ignored. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems we'll have to watch out then, I could imagine people would continue adding this in good faith. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arctic plant diversity and forb prevalence vs. time 

message: In the Cultural Significance section, it states: Native Siberians believed woolly mammoth remains to be those of giant mole-like animals that lived underground and died when burrowing to the surface. However, I can't find any reference to this in the linked source (http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/40/445-451/124). Is there a better source for this claim? 85.6.194.90 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference to this belief in Our lost explorers : the narrative of the Jeannette Arctic Expedition as related by the survivors, and in the records and last journals of Lieutenant De Long by Raymond Lee Newcomb, p. 96 (https://archive.org/details/ourlostexplorers01newc), and have added it to the article. 85.6.194.90 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, there is another source in the article that states that, but always good with new ones. You just need to format it in the same way as the other citations. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native Siberian beliefs about the woolly mammoth 

message: Most modern sources ignore the complicated taxonomic situation concerning this species around the turn of the last century, so I didn't include it when I first wrote the article, as I didn't know where to get an overview and what the issues were. But now that I've gathered some of the sources (mainly), I think it's time to discuss some of this stuff. But it is quite complicated, so will take some time to explain it properly/for me to get it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: love the title of this section, not sure I can help but if you want an idiot to say "nope, I don't understand", until your explanation makes sense, let me know. EdwardLane (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, it'll probably be added over some time, while I also edit Columbian mammoth. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the taxonomy section has been expanded and restructured. Is it understandable? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure taxonomy stuff 

message: How could a weakened adult be vulnerable to predators like cats and bears? We don't see modern adult elephants being attacked by cats in Africa nor Asia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.14.169 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, sign your contributions; and secondly, place them in the correct order at the foot of the Talk page. Your contribution to the article was pure speculation and has been removed. Wikipedia relies on confirmed sources and not unsourced edits. David J Johnson (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do see lions attacking adult elephants:  FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Predation

message: In the evolution section on the phylogenetic tree there is no cross next to Mammuthus but there are crosses next to other extinct genera in the phylogenetic tree. --184.59.90.136 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Error 

message: 8,000 BCE is always the same, but 10,000 years ago is not. --UnindentifiedHuman (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We do what the sources do. I wonder whether this article will even exist in a thousand years, I'd say your concern is a bit premature. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the instances of X years ago should be changed to X BCE. 

message: Journal reference for the Neanderthal bone dwellings:  jonkerz ♠talk 21:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, added, no idea why anyone added a horrible about.com link, just noticed and replaced it now... FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammoth bone dwellings 

message: According to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Paul_Island_%28Alaska%29
A dwarf variety of mammoth survived on Saint Paul Island until c. 3,750 BC
but here, we are told that
Isolated populations survived on St. Paul Island until 6,400 years ago
That's a difference of about 630 years. Likewise according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangel_Island
the last mammoths on the island c. 1700 BC
but here, we are told that
Wrangel Island until 4,000 years ago
That's a difference of about 300 years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:4B42:0:0:0:206 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, easiest way to determine what is correct is always to check out the sources used. Should be easy for anyone.  FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Paul Island mammoth 

message: A summary from the following article should be integrated -- presumably in the 'frozen specimen' section; or at least, a 'See also' section created with link to same: Yukagir mammoth.  Also, that article could use some copy/edit, etc.  --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A99B:8185:FE40:CECC (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The specimen is mentioned several times in the article. What else info is important in an article about the species as a whole? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed ambiguous at best as to whether or not that specimen was included. Re-reading the 'Frozen specimens' section, I still don't see it; no mention of this "exceptional" specimen discovered in 2002.  The 'See also' section is for related articles; Yukagir mammoth would qualify. [op]:107.15.152.93 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I'll add something tonight. FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was tempted to do it myself, but didn't want to mess up a 'featured article'.   ;)   [op]:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A1FA:194E:E841:B585 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now added some text. I must admit I thought it was there already, so thanks for the pointer! FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yukagir mammoth 

message: Since there is a mention in this article regarding the Woolly Mammoth's importance in cryptozoology, shouldn't it be listed under the WikiProject Cryptozoology?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article had been written in the early 20th century, then maybe, but no one seriously believe mammoths exist today. Perhaps the title is even misleading, because the sources used don't actually mention cryptozoology. Maybe it should be called "alleged modern sightings" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

text: But are there still seriously reported sightings of mammoths? Not as far as I know. There was some video a few years ago which turned out to be a CGI hoax. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Cryptozoology 

message: Why no mention of the Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival Project led by Dr. George Church? MaynardClark (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many of such purported projects that singling out one of them would be pointless. None of them are even close to achieving it. Cloning already has its own section, and nothing needs to be added there until something is actually accomplished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with "censorship", but with bad writing and WP:summary style, which I suggest you look up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, deleting the cited references as "garbage" and "style" only comes from an ignorant with initiative. You years-long campaign deleting information in this article is very cute. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the "ignorant" who wrote 90% of this article, and nominated it for featured status. Your personal attacks, including this one, should be enough to report you to the admins. And don't remove entire paragraphs without consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival Project 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Woolly mammoth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630060405/http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/11/mammoths-still-walked-the-earth-when-the-great-pyramids-were-being-built/100307 to http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/11/mammoths-still-walked-the-earth-when-the-great-pyramids-were-being-built/100307
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130201150008/http://rt.com/art-and-culture/news/child-finds-mammoth-639/ to http://rt.com/art-and-culture/news/child-finds-mammoth-639/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118060303/http://www.tacomapubliclibrary.org/morgan/Tukeman.htm to http://www.tacomapubliclibrary.org/morgan/Tukeman.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Woolly mammoth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106233410/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exploration/episodes/mammoth-back-from-the-dead/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exploration/episodes/mammoth-back-from-the-dead/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is no reason to delete the names and teams working on recreating/hybridizing the species. It is not Lord Voldemort. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the earlier section (where you could simply have replied long ago), it is quite excessive, considering none of these teams have achieved much if anything. In any case, yes, a consensus version could be made (has been made?), which deletes none of the original content. If not, as stated otherwise, it should be restored. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass deletion of active teams 

message: I expect a few more research papers from the Japanese team following these experiments on nuclear transfer: Signs of biological activities of 28,000-year-old mammoth nuclei in mouse oocytes visualized by live-cell imaging. "In total, 88 nucleus-like structures were collected."  After nuclear transfer, it looks like there is limited activity despite extensive DNA damage, which may have held together by histones, and they even detected assembled spindles in 21% of the NT oocytes. The team is now working on "reconstruction of mammoth nuclei upon nuclear transfer to mouse oocytes", as they see evidence that mammoth nuclei potentially stimulate the DNA repair machinery in mouse oocytes.  It will take a bit of time to put these findings in perspective for Wikipedia. Rowan Forest (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this info would be most fitting in the paragraph that deals with the Yuka mammoth calf. The study doesn't really say anything about the species overall. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but in practical terms it doesn't take us any closer to resurrecting the species. However, it is the sort of announcement that might help them obtain funding. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a note of this in the paragraph about Yuka. Genetics are not my strong side, so feel free to modify. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it merits mentioning. They're not likely to ever to accomplish anything significant with this approach. WolfmanSF (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it represents any sort of progress towards bringing mammoths back to life or understanding them better. If you believe differently, please explain why. WolfmanSF (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove info without discussing it first. I already explained this in the edit summary, please read them: "It is significant in relation to the specimen (where the text is placed). As important as it being made into a taxidermy mount, if not more." No one said it is important to mammoth cloning overall, and it is not even in that section. But "biological activity" in mammoth samples is significant in itself regardless of what it will mean for cloning or not, everything doesn't have to be viewed through that lens. If this is very important to you, request or wait for more comments from other editors. Your next revert will be your third, mind you. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Signs of biological activity" is meaningless in and of itself, and not surprising in a living mouse embryo cell to which something was added, except to indicate that the addition did not kill the cell. What they are reporting is the process of spindle formation commenced in association with the injected mammoth chromosomes. Given that the spindle formation machinery is derived from the mouse cells, and that there is no indication of any functional activity of the mammoth chromosomes, it is difficult to claim that the "biological activity" observed has any significance. Rather than go into an explanation of the arcane and not very relevant subject of spindle formation, or leave the reader with a meaningless statement about "biological activity", it makes more sense not to mention this work, which was intended to contribute to mammoth cloning, but which has not achieved any progress towards that almost certainly unattainable goal. WolfmanSF (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wolfman. The mouse oocyte synthetized the spindle, and it is not surprising it attaches to DNA, any DNA. That is not notable. The point of their preliminary experiments was (no results and no data) to eventually use the oocyte's DNA repair mechanism to reconstruct "some" sections of the dsDNA, BUT that is just a hope; their research will take a very long time to produce any significant results or progress to mention in Wikipedia. The entry in Wikipedia is not useful as it is because it suggests that transcription and translation took place. If not deleted, perhaps it can be reworded to the effect that the mammoth nuclei they obtained from Yuka were the least damaged nuclei ever found, but it is still in very very rough shape (non-functional DNA). Rowan Forest (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, it is a single sentence directly linked to the specimen in question (Yuka), and yet again, is not even used to say anything at all about cloning or similar (personally, I find cloning the least interesting aspect of this animal). The mere fact that the Yuka specimen was used for such an experiment makes it notable in relation to that specimen, regardless of the implications, just as the fact that it is going to be taxidermied is. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuka yields semi-functional nuclei 

message: The article has 32 (!!) uses of the word also; many of those I checked appeared redundant.  See User:Tony1 redundancy reducing exercises.  Marking Satisfactory (not watchlisting).  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: – tamed from 24 down to three. Tony (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking it over! FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: In early February, I added some sections elaborating on recent studies by Wang et al. (2021) and Murchie et al.  (2021), both of which found evidence for late-surviving mammoths on the Siberian and North American mainlands via eDNA evidence, with the former study also finding evidence that the mammoth's extinction was linked primarily to environmental factors (in addition, I merged two paragraphs together in the Extinction section that were essentially stating the same thing, although with a bit of unique info for each). These changes were undone by FunkMonk a couple of days later due to this being a featured page, and I was told to bring it to the talk page. So I'm just putting these here. I don't think there was anything really controversial in the info I put, so I think it should be added back as it previously was. Geekgecko (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is already a very long article, so extremely detailed information should be WP:summarised, not written in that much detail, and added to existing relevant sections, instead of making new ones. For example, there is no reason to have two new sections called "Late-surviving mammoths" and "Environmental DNA" when the text in these sections basically deal with the same thing, and fit in existing sections such as "extinction", where these issues are already covered. These new studies warrants a paragraph or so, not entirely new sections. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, so can I add the info back to the article but summarized? Geekgecko (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there should be sections already that can adequately contain it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  eDNA and extinction 

message: Why is their alleged survival listed under cultural significance? This seems quite unrelated from a section, and would be better suited under the extinction section. --Rowankoe (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is basically hoaxes and folk tales. FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged survival unrelated to cultural significance 

message: Please Allow me to change something, I want to state the fact that Woolly Mammoths were slightly smaller than African Elephants and slightly larger than Asian elephants Spinothetherapod09 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a WP:SOURCE for that claim?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already states "this is almost as large as extant male African elephants". FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023 

message: I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the author for this article. The first direct molecular imaging of protein from a woolly mammoth was recently published. It was done using an electron microscope, and shows that the overall 3-D structure of type-1 bone collagen is well preserved within even average, disarticulate permafrost mammoth specimens. It's also compared against a temperate subfossil columbian mammoth, and the preserved protein fibrils can be observed to be far more degraded than the permafrost comaparison. Please see Figure 1 of the following link..and please judge for yourself whether this information is a fit for this webpage:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.9518 184.170.72.76 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there could be an article about soft tissue preservation in mammoths, it's almost a subject in itself. This particular article is a bit heavy at the moment, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First direct imaging of mammoth collagen protein 

message: The current image is misleading as it implies that woolly mammoths were uniformly around 3.5 metres tall when most individuals were considerably smaller than this. If we are going to have a silhouetted size comparison, then I would rather we had one like Steveoc's African bush elephant one, which shows the height difference between males and females as well as the difference between the average size and the largest recorded individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Male and female shoulder height estimates are given in this paper, and I would be happy to create a size diagram based on this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably easiest to ask the author  to make any modifications then. You mentioned clutter in your edit summary, if it's because the mammoths overlap, they could be spread out more. Either way, I don't think it's an improvement to replace with an image that has less taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do we need an image with multiple mammoth species in this article to begin with, given that this is the woolly mammoth and not the mammoth article? Showing the size variation within the species is more informative to the reader than comparing a single very large (as in, considerably larger than average) woolly mammoth individual to individuals of other mammoth species (some of which are also very large like M. trogontherii). Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it shows its size in relation to its relatives, and given how the woolly mammoth is often popularly noted for its size, it's important to show it in context (and showing that other species were larger or smaller, like we do in other articles for taxa noted for their size). I see no good reason why not to show this in a single image, as long as it is visually clear. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the diagram deliberately picks the largest known specimens of several species (notably M. primigenius and M. trogontherii), which provides a misleading impression of the size of these species. It's like taking Shaquille O'Neal as representative of human height. I've made a size diagram comparing the average size of male and female woolly mammoths (based on the estimate in the paper I linked earlier, the Larramendi 2016 paper does not provide a female estimate), which I think is suitable for inclusion in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we should discuss the diagram so it can be improved instead of removing it without discussion. And please don't remove any more info without discussing it first, it's disruptive; ask for the citations instead. That some drive-by editors have messed the citations up doesn't mean they can't simply be added again, simply removing the info risks that it will never be added again, so at the very, very least, add a citation needed tag. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the current diagram is okay as is as long as its clearly specified that the specimen in the diagram is of above-average size and there are other complimentary diagrams showing the average and size variation within the species. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but then the caption and Commons description can just be changed. If we want changes to the image, Slate is active enough that we can wait for it. As for citations, lack of page numbers doesn't justify removing information, we have pages needed and citation needed tags for that, and you've asked for photos of the pages before, so you can just ask again. I'm all for anyone improving the article, but removing info before checking that it can be cited simply isn't improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, thanks for re-providing the citation. The lack of citation structure of the section before I edited it made it very confusing to try to figure out what estimates came from where. If I was 100% sure the estimate was from Lister 2007 I would have been less inclined to remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with a popular article like this is that it attracts a lot of drive-by editors who mess around with the text so that citations don't end up where they should be, or the same citations are added again, just with different formatting than what has already been established, as in this case. While I wrote most of the article, it's extremely difficult to keep track of all those changes, but I usually know which sources to consult in case something looks off. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I didn't realize that my mammoth size chart was in use anywhere; it was ruled inaccurate during its review at WP:PALEOART and should not be in use since the concerns raised have not been addressed. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess someone replaced the one I made long ago. Should it be re added, or is there a chance your image will be updated, Slate? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The odds of me getting around to updating this any time soon are pretty bad (best case scenario would be more than a month out); I'd recommend just using the older one. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size image