Talk:Proailurus

message: Hi, why do you have deleted that section?--Altaileopard (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrelevant -- why, in an article about Proailurus, talk about another organism which is not even very closely related? As with most extinct animals, we don't know what Proailurus' direct ancestors and descendants (if any) were. --Levana Taylor (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until recently Proailurus was believed to be a real felid. Today that is disputed, but still possible. Proailurus could still be that animal from which Pseudaelurus orginated.. and therefore all living felids. That is not irrelevant.--Altaileopard (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I changed the wording of the paragraph to reflect what you just said. What do you think? --Levana Taylor (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with that. Cheers.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, I found the reference as Wesley-Hunt, G. D., Flynn, J. J., (2005), PHYLOGENY OF THE CARNIVORA: BASAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE CARNIVORAMORPHANS, AND ASSESSMENT OF THE POSITION OF 'MIACOIDEA' RELATIVE TO CARNIVORA, Journal of Systematic Paleontology, 3:1, pp 1-28 134.115.131.118 134.115.131.118 (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section deleted 

message: Substituted at 03:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I found a paper that stated that there are three Proailurus species , and an additional acknowledgment in this article . However, I have no idea how to add those to the taxobox. Hence, I am putting it here on the talk page, for either someone else to use, or to come back to later when I'm more experienced at editing. (Note: the first article is in French, but there's an English abstract given that states things pretty clearly)--SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species and the taxobox 

message: I have just begun rewriting and expanding this article, and am well aware that most of the sources I've added are rather old, poorly formatted, and do not contain links. Before anyone calls me on this, I'd like a chance to explain.
* I only have two of the sources I added (Werdelin 2010, Hunt 1998), both of which are available free online. There is a third source, Peigne 1999, which is also available online but is in French; I used the English abstract and mentions of its research in Werdelin 2010. See the two links in the above section for Peigne 1999 and Werdelin 2010, respectively.
* Having read the entirety of Hunt 1998, I used the information and additional papers mentioned in it to write much of this article, using its own reference section to add most of the refs here, by way of copy-pasting them. Hence the terrible formatting.
I used what information I accumulated from Hunt 1998, Peigne 1999's abstract, and Werdelin 2010 to write this article as it is. Feel free to fix the refs or expand it using the other sources named. Actually, if anyone can find the other refs online (free) or an English translation of Peigne 1999, I would be grateful if they would link to it.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: Here is the link to the Hunt 1998 paper- . It is available free online (the link should let you open the paper).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

text: it's generally best to avoid citing works you haven't reviewed. You don't necessarily need to cite original sources if the information is verifiable elsewhere, and if you try to much mirror the form of citing and writing in other sources, you may risk close paraphrasing. Wikipedia:Citing sources explains the basics of citing, see especially WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Also, I notice at least one reference contains "ibid". This is discouraged since it obscures the original source (see WP:IBID), especially as references get moved around during article expansion. Lastly, the Biodiversity Heritage Library and Internet Archive are great resources for old literature. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent expansion and new sources 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion