Talk:Palaeopropithecus

message: Based on text should this have the cat:
Category:Mammal extinctions since 1500?
Your thought? Telecine Guy (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat

message: Seeing this page it seems that the information of the article come from those page, and (at least) Molphology section seems too that is about Palaeopropithecus ingens not about Palaepropithecus genus. --Furado (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of many pages I hope to completely re-write in the not-to-distant future.  With web sourses, it's always difficult to say if the Wiki article is the copyright violation or if the other web source is.  I won't be able to tell until I get home from work and can use a real web browser (no IE6).  A lot of times you can tell by looking at the article's edit history and comparing that to the last edit date of the website you're looking at.  If I determine that it's a copyright violation later this evening, I will delete the offending material. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol... the date of the last update on the website was at the bottom of the page and clearly predated the Wiki article.  Anyway, I've removed the copyright violation. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think too it is better now. On the other hand, it is good news for me that you think to re-write the article (even if it is a "short" one), because I planed to translate it for the Spanish Wikipedia and your articles are always excellent. I will wait with interest the "not-to-distant future" ;). Greetings from the rainy (but green and nice!!) north-west of Spain. --Furado (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for translating these articles!  I will try to keep you from waiting, although I have a lot to do this year both on and off Wiki. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morphology section 

message: Could someone please define what a "life restoration" is supposed to be?  The phrase implies that the creature's genetics have been recreated, and a creature created! Which is obviously not true. Or a model created/photograph?  Or CGI magic?  Based on the Commons file description, it seems to be a reconstruction of its (possible? probable?) appearance (based on? related species? bones/fossils? etc.) that were mentioned on the commons page. 
It looks like someone may have done some valuable work, but basically, but I just like a spade to be called a spade, based on what sources, on the Wikipedia page. Thank you! Peacedance (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: When they say "life restoration" in reference to a drawing of some dead thing, it's shorthand for "what the artist suggests the subject looked like while the subject was still alive," or, a reiteration or synonym of "reconstruction."--Mr Fink (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Life restoration"? 

message: How on earth is this species "Prehistoric"(judging by the two categories "Prehistoric primate genera" and "Prehistoric animals of Madagascar") even though there are clearly written records about them(albiet in a completely different language) since the first written records of Madagascar came from the Arabs who arrived there around the 700 AD, long before this species even became extinct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebeatles2020 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question