Talk:Thylacoleonidae

message: Having examined  users UtherSRG and Cazique have engaged in an unacceptable revert war. Both of you have received warning on your talk pages, so I have made a formal report to WP:3RR. Before anyone contributes further to this dispute, a vote needs to be made to establish a consensus. Once this is established the other side must respect this. 
As I have not been a contributor to these pages until today I will refrain from voting. Remember, revert warring is not acceptable on wikipedia. Mark t young (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Everyone reply here because as of yet you have all failed in giving logical reasons for the keeping of "marsupial lion" as a redirect to Thylacoleonidae due to limited knowledge on the matter. This is what happens when wikipedia lets any ignorant person editing it's pages. I have refuted everything you all have said, have not sidetracked and have called in to question your logics on a number of occasions which you all simply ignore or sidetrack. If anyone actually did take the time to read all your logics they would see how idiotic I have shown them to be. I am not being uncivil I am being truthful, you will not silence me and until you offer reasons with logic I will continue to question this. Cazique (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make one more attempt.  The logical reason for keeping "marsupial lion" as a redirect to Thylacoleonidae is that the term "marsupial lion" can be used for species other than T. carnifex.  This is supported by this reliable, verifiable source.   You have provided no reliable, verifiable sources (no sources at all in fact) demonstrating that "marsupial lion" can only refer to T. carnifex and not to any other species.Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus, no resolution 

message: As per the discussion on my talk page, I thought I'd open up the question of this category (which I've just restored on all relevant article, bar this one of course!). I'm not sure if it is too taxonomically specific, although I am leaning to that conclusion. On the pages of a family of Devonian placoderms they have a template at the bottom (see Aggeraspis), what do people that about implementing something like that instead? I personally don't mind either way, but if the category is going to be retained then two things:
*Diprotodontia category becomes redundant as ML is be nested within.
*And as Uther pointed out it should be :Category:Marsupial lions, lower case l to bring it into line with the guidelines for categories.
Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Marsupial Lion category is too specific, the older category was sufficient enough. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: For now, I've moved the articles into :category:marsupial lions since this is better than :category:Marsupial Lions as per WP:MaM. That being said, I'm not married to this, and simply dumping them in :category:prehistoric diprotodonts is sufficient. (Note, that an article should be in the smallest existing category and not any larger one if the larger one fully contains the smaller one. We should not be placing these in both :category:prehistoric marsupials and :category:diprotodonts, since both of these categories fully contain both :category:marsupial lions and :category:prehistoric diprotodonts.) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the articles should not have both :category:prehistoric marsupials and :category:diprotodonts. However, I feel that :category:marsupial lions is too specific and effectively redundant as anyone can simply go to the article Marsupial lions (→ Thylacoleonidae) to achieve the same outcome as looking at the category page. I also think that it was fine for you (UtherSRG) to change the M-L cat to the correct case (and even add it) but you should not have removed the existing conflicting categories until some further discussion had ensued and, dare I say it, some sort of consensus had been reached regarding this. This is a minor matter so the edits can stand for now but I do think it prudent if we were all perhaps a little less WP:BOLD on these articles for a while. Secret Squïrrel 03:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm coming to agree with you SS. :category:marsupial lions is too specific. One level up is probably just fine. the category will never be more than about a dozen articles, which falls short of the guidelines for a category I believe, while the next larger category is currently far from having too many articles. If we ever fully populate all of the prehistoric diprotodont articles, we can revisit this and see where a better split might be. But I'll leave it as is for now and see what others think. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In addition, the other two subcategories of :category:prehistoric diprotodonts are suborders, while the category in question is a family. It would be better to keep things broken down at the same level where possible. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! A Category for marsupial lions is to specific.--Altaileopard (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent, seems we have consensus. I did a check, and thylaceonids don't appear to be a member of either suborder, so if no-one objects I'll change the category to :Category:Prehistoric diprotodonts. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've deleted the empty category. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marsupial Lion category

message: The word "chevrons" on Marsupial lion should link to Chevron (anatomy) , not Chevron (insignia). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Chevron