Talk:Scimitar oryx

message: If the species is considered EW, why do we use the phrase, "...inhabits grassy steppes..." instead of "...inhabited grassy steppes..." in the Habitats & Distribution section? Is it because of the re-introduction programme or perhaps the private herds? I have not seen this phrasing in other EW articles. I am not changing it because I have no knowledge of this subject (which is why I came to the article in the first place). Kevin/Last1in (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a bit confusing. For in some articles (like Wyoming toad) it is present tense they use. Still I think it would be good to hear past tense here. What do you think?--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, For any range that the animal no longer inhabits, we should use past tense. If they are EW, they don't inhabit any of their former ranges, so it should all be past tense. Don Lammers (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your much required help! --Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: * Does the article need to have some mention of the Texas rancher breeding programs, their assistance with sustaining the population, the judicial ruling against their hunting and placement on the endangered species list, and the subsequent loss in population numbers as a result of the ruling?  This was a very significant series of events to the survival of the species.
* The 2nd paragraph of the Taxonomy and naming section completely misrepresents the sources and needs rewriting from scratch. Ellerman and Morrison-Scott are covered twice, once pretending that they were alive in 1827 (tao was assigned by Smith). They didn't "consider" elgazel "inappropriate"; they demonstrated it to be unavailable. Cretzschmar didn't assign dammah a decade later than 1827 -- this must be a careless copy-paste from the source. He assigned it in 1826 (a decade after Oken), obviously not replacing the 1827 names. I haven't bothered to copyedit this paragraph. --Stfg (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have first removed the synonyms - the MSW book says only their second species names (tao, algazel) not the first genus ones. About this section, I am very sorry for all these mistakes. Fixed up now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I hope this section is not so technical now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'll surely work on your suggestions. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 11:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comments. I am busy presently, so I need time to fix the issues you have mentioned. PR is a good idea, I thought to send it for a PR after the copyedit. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll keep it watchlisted for a while. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not fixed the issues you mentioned after the Reproduction part, as it needs more time for I need to get the good references. Yes, you are right- there is an overuse of refs like Ultimate Ungulate. I'll try to get more book sources here. FAC is far now, this needs more reworking. Thanks, Stfg, for your thorough copyedit. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit, March 2013 

message: "Weaning starts at 3.5 months, and the young become fully independent at around 14 weeks old."
3.5 months is the same as 14 weeks.  Is this a case of conflicting information from two sources?  As it is, it doesn't make much sense. 66.30.195.11 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic problem 

message: (I hope I'm doing this properly. Don't know if I've ever contributed to a talk page before.)
The last part of the article indicates that the Oryx is featured on the logo for Disney's Animal Kingdom and for the Harambe Wildlife Reserve.  I believe this is not correct, unless things have changed recently.  The symbol of the reserve is the sable antelope, which has similarly large horns, though somewhat differently shaped.  This piece of information was for a number of years part of the narration of the Safari attraction. If this is the case for the reserve, which is part of the park's thesis attraction, it seems reasonable to extend this identification to the logo of the park itself, which has a similar horned animal.
If others are better informed than I on this issue, I will gladly be corrected.
Cigar95 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your attention! I removed this content, as it was anyway unsourced. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney's Animal Kingdom