Talk:Australian megafauna

message: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506181711.htm Will this change the information on this page at all?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.22 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New UNSE Research

message: How about with the arrival of man instead of Aborigines. Aborigines in this context doesn't make sense to me.  freshgavin TALK   03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The context should have been dabbed to Australian Aborigines anyway, but I think you're right - man works better in context. --Scott Davis Talk 06:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  PC -  Polite and correct.  I'm changing it.  Fred.e 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PC

message: Should this page fold in to, or be related to or in a heirarchy with, Pleistocene megafauna? --Leperflesh 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is mentioned on Pleistocene megafauna.--Peta 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pleistocene megafauna

message: The linkification of species listed is inconsistent: in many cases, the exact species is linked, while in others, only the genus is linked. Obviously this has been done to create operating links, where no species page has been created: however, the inconsistency is bad, and one cannot know if a given species page will be created in the near future. I think we should either link to the genus in all cases, or to the species in all cases, or both (a link for each of the two words), consistently. --Leperflesh 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe at the genus level would surfice. Only if the article becomes too big do we start on the species level. I have also expanded the mammals list according to Flannery. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extinct species list

message: Great show on Nova (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bonediggers/thylacoleo.html) about Thylacoleo carnifex. It should be added to this page. --Leperflesh 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marsupial Lion

message: Should a new section relating to Megafaunal Extinction in Australia be added to this article? It woud make a some sense, since Australia lost 90% of its megafaunal species in the Pleistocene. I'm rather new to the world of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure on how to work on a new section, but I would propose a few people collaborating to write the new section, corresponding via email, rather than simply posting a poorly prepared brief section.
I would happily contribute my time to writing the section, but I'm a bit short of time at the moment, as I am currently completing tear 12. I would also be wary about posting on a such a hotly disputed topic without expert contribution. Is there an Australian paleontologist in the house?
T.carnifex (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such a section would be fine. but please add good references.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I have access to several journal articles reating to the subject. Finding reliable references should be no trouble. A few of them are already referenced for various other reasons. T.carnifex (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megafaunal Extinction in Australia 

message: Why is there a section of post-1788 non-megafauna extinctions? This article is about Australian megafauna. Can we please eliminate the section? Joelito (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the section makes sense... any objection? MurfleMan (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and would go further to suggest that we could delete the "Other Large Australian Species" since they're beyond the scope of the article. They might well be interesting fauna, but it's superfluous. T.carnifex (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. MurfleMan (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinctions 

message: I can think of three or four different intended meanings for the very awkward phrase: "equal to or greater than 30% greater body mass than their closest living relatives". The most likely is "130% or more of the body mass of their closest living relative", but there are other possibilities. What should it actually say? Luwilt (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like some clarity here as well.  I am inclined to think the body mass of at least 130% of their closest living relative is correct because they are supposed to be large. Coralshin (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence is very badly worded

message: The scope of the article appears to be about endemic megafauna, but this is not explicitly stated, the article uses the preposition "in" rather than "of". So what about the huge number of introduced species including of course humans "in" Australia ?? Then a huge number of significant sea-based megafauna found in Australian waters. For example the dugong and a number of whale, dolphin and seal species listed here List of marine mammals of Australia, List of placental mammals introduced to Australia along with sharks and big fish found there. Also, what about dinosaurs ?  I suggest renaming to Continental Australian Megafauana of the Quaternary Period --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endemism ? and geological scope 

message: Pay attention to not exceed in the man-did-it theories. As example, the infamous Genyornis eggs, the 'smoking gun' of that bird extinction, were found to be no Genyornis egg at all. See https://theconversation.com/a-case-of-mistaken-identity-for-australias-extinct-big-bird-52856   And this was the best 'documented' extinction megafauna animal by australians. It seems that many wiki-contributors and scientist are a bit too afraid to show the 'man fault' in the megafauna extinction, despite the lack of any direct proof about it. That Flannery is quoted, is also quite disturbing as he, frankly speaking, could be a lot better in this field. See Wroe http://www.pnas.org/content/110/22/8777.full  as example. This article seems to ignore largely anything that don't say 'man did it'. And this is common in wikipedia, i admit, even if there are a lot of open question about it. Just see Clovis first theory (and blitkrieg model made by Martin and quoted and supported by Flannery) and its total and final demise. 62.11.0.22 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Too unbalanced (NPOV) article devoted to the human made extinctions

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian megafauna. 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/20110927111457/http://www.control.com.au/bi2008/299megafauna.pdf to http://www.control.com.au/bi2008/299megafauna.pdf
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) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find the order of the sections very odd. Wouldn't it make more sense to describe the megafauna first, then discuss the reasons for extinction? Putting the reasons for extinction first leaves the reader with no background as to what has become extinct and introduces a specialized topic (since it does not involve the extant megafauna) first. I suggest moving that section to follow the sections on the living and extinct megafauna.Bill (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Order