Talk:Megafauna/archive

message: There is a link to the equus that leads to a disambiguation page. The page has nothing about an animal called the equus.Alex Klotz 23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equus 

message: Why aren't dinosaurs and other similar animals included? Under the given definition, they would all be megafauna. Or is the definition unclear in this respect? -Rosey
:All the Megafauna in this article appear to actually be Pleistocene Megafauna (i.e. Megafauna that were around in that epoch). Perhaps this article should be re-named to Pleistocene Megafauna, so that Megafauna from other timeframes could be on the main Megafauna article, or perhaps we need a Megafauna article for each  epoch? -- 63.226.38.196 16:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, wait, why arn't dinosaurs listed here?  This article isn't Pleistocene specific...maybe it should be moved, then made to be so.  Any objections?  --mordicai. 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should state specifically it only lists Pleistocene megafauna, and then make a page that has a list of all megafauna seperately; in general, when people are referring to megafauna, they're referring to Pleistocene megafauna, but I think a list of all megafauna would be appropriate, if extremely long - for some bizzare reason there was a lot more of it back in the day. Titanium Dragon 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaurs? 

message: This listing appears to be using all possible definitions of the term "megafauna" while showing no distinctions. Either that or there a bunch of over 1 ton birds out there. Perhaps the list should be split along definitional lines. Rmhermen 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eyes.  While the Cassowary IS pretty big, it doesn't really meat the criteria for megafauna.  I'd say that a heavy editing hand should be shown; why bother re-listing if the other definitions are not accepted?  --mordicai. 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now things are definately verging on goofy, with the inclusion of things like the Bald Eagle.  A big bird, sure, but not what I would think of as megafauna-- males weigh only 9 pounds.  --mordicai. 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the Secretary Bird.  Big as far as birds go, but not exactly megafauna. -- T.o.n.y 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I keep meaning to come over here when I have some time & delete everything not over a metric ton, but I've been swamped.--mordicai. 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many authors have throughout the primary literature defined megafauna as any animal over 44 kg in body weight. This definition appears to be most common, although clearly other definitions exist. Please do not remove species from this list until the definition of megafauna has been clarified and properly referenced, as all of these species may fall into one or more of these categories. I will find the time to do this soon, as I have a long list of references too add to this topic. Also we need make a clearer distinction between Pleistocene megafauna and the extant megafauna of today.--Tug201 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly think you are right; the first step should be to define the term, especially since the article currently has 500 kg listed as the lowest cut-off.  A good solid reference would be a gem, certainly.  I'm glad to know that someone is on the case.  --mordicai. 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even need to stop at birds. The jackal, hyena, and border collie are in here, so it must be using a really low definition. PolarisSLBM 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused list

message: Smells like POV to me. I'd like to see some reference for this, as this doesnt seem to be an encyclopedical piece of text. Arctic-Editor 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.wildlifeworks.com/prod/product325.html has the text - so either the editor plagiarised from this web page - or the business plagiarised from the same place that the editor did SatuSuro 05:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yech.  Well, I think a plagarism is enough reason alone to remove it for now.  I do think the subject has a place in this article, but as Arctic-Editor says, it is a little too much OR.  Ideally I'd like a reputable source saying these things, & the article couching the statement with appropriate terms ("Some think...")  --mordicai. 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If quoted from reasonable academic sources - with no obvious conservationist bashing pov sources - adequately cited - I would be prepared to accept an argument if placed with reasonable consideration of more than one way of looking at the subject SatuSuro 03:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with this term. The first time I heard it was last year in an radio interview with a zoo-keeper regarding problems with the transportation of elephants from Thailand to Australia. Sure, it needs a reference, as does most of the text on Wikipedia. But it ain't POV. Hesperian 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charismatic Megafauna? 

message: There should be some limitations to what is exepted here or they should be categorized differently e.g. in timescale if you want to include both arsinoitherium and bush elephant in the same category. I think what people want to learn is the megafauna of pleistocene and there might be a good idea to make a page of it's own for that and let this page just be an explanation what is meant with the word megafauna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.240.122.87 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Many of the listings for domesticated megafauna are different breeds of a single species, the domestic dog.  Shouldn't these be replaced by a single listing for "dog" with the breed information put under a dog or dog breed entry? This would simplify the list and would also far more dramatically show the limited number of domestic megafauna species.  It also makes it easier to see if any domestic megafauna have been omitted?  Ohwilleke 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs 

message: The list currently includes animals where adult specimens typically weigh over 500 pounds.  The introduction says the cutoff is 500 kilograms, though.  Which should we use?  Is there a citation available on this?  The only references I can find make the cutoff 100 pounds, which would lead to un unmanageably large list (i.e. not worth keeping). - Atarr 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been using 500 lbs (227 kg) so far, I saw we continue with that. 500 kilos will make an extremely short list. --Scorpios 04:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but then we should revise the introduction and, if at all possible, provide some source that supports this choice. - Atarr 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A few animals on the list do not reach 500 lbs, like the panda and the Komodo Dragon. I'll go ahead and remove them for now. PenguinJockey 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  500+ lbs, or 500+ kg? 

message: You said your finished with collecting things from Giant Animal but here is the list just in case. There are lots of Latin names here and size details here you might want to integrate to Megafauna still. Goldenrowley 02:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Giant Animal

message: There's been a rather large amount of editing recently. As of right now I'm going to revert the edits, pre-sorting. Then I'm going to go through and remove all of the crap (Cranes and such) that were added recently. Following these edits, I want to go thru and examine these sorting changes.
As for sorting though, does anyone oppose such a measure? It sounds good to me. --Scorpios 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Forthcoming Edits

message: I'm removing the verifiability tag. I cleaned out the article long ago and since then it has been constantly patrolled by several users, particularly myself, Atarr, PenguinJockey and many anonymous users. I don't think that the tag is needed, now that we have constant watching and know that what is in there now is accurate. --Scorpios 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: I notice a few discussions above about limiting this article to Pleistocene megafauna, but this doesn't seem to have been followed. I think limiting the list to a Pleistocene-Recent time frame, corresponding with the presence of modenr humans, is a pretty good approximation of what most people mean when they talk about megafauna, and will help keep things like dinosaurs off the list (or Chalicotherium, which is on the list right now, but at 30-40 million years old, is closer in time to T. rex than to humans!). Dinoguy2 08:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit to human-based time span?