This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Montanabw, I see that you have suggested to merge this article with Equus conversidens- what were your justifications, may I ask? I have found more recent sources, as listed, which not only justify Equus alaskae, but even list Equus conversidens as a synonym of E. alaskae. Due to the contentious nature of equiid palaeontology in the Americas, I would consider both articles as legitimate. SuperTah (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
My position is that if they are the same species or subspecies, there should only be one article. I have no strong views on which title it should be, though it appears that some of the mexicanus subspecies might also be listed as conversidens. I am aware that there is a lot of disagreement, but content forks don't help. At a minimum, if the articles are not merged, then the controversy should be mentioned with a cross-link to the other article. Montanabw(talk)23:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply