 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Why does it say 'Placcyderma'? Is this a typo?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.17.208.21 (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
"Rhinoceros" and "hippopotamus" are Greek, not Latin, and thus are pluralized with -ses, not -i. 139.140.192.125 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC) gd
"Unfashionable"? --Wetman 01:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's this rumor "the elephant population has tripled" all about? Giant Blue Anteater 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)for dumber people a pacyderm is an elephant.
About what date did Pachydermata get eliminated? It seems to be in use as late as 1907: http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Wood-NuttallEncyclopaedia/p/pachydermata.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricHerman (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't get out of my mind the mind-worm that Pachydermata still exist - only they are called 'Politicians'. Autochthony wrote. 2028z 18 December 2010 81.155.133.144 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I opine that we remove this article entirely--not just delete, mind you, remove.
In the sentences that follow, I shall attempt to justify that opinion.
This is a moribund term--one which is used in only the most colloquial settings, amongst people who are thoroughly 'behind the times' in regards to evolutionary science. By meriting it as worthy of its own Wikipedia article, we are facilitating, and perhaps even propagating, a dated and unquestionably apocryphal nomenclature amongst the 'unwashed masses' who so rely upon our projects for their accrual of knowledge.
Now, to be fair, the term is disclaimed as being 'obsolete' in the opening sentence of the article--but I feel this is not enough. Merely by deeming it warranted of a mention on this site, we are condoning ignorance.
The average Wikipedia viewer does not make a concerted effort to ascertain accurate information, especially in regards to learning something so comparatively minute as this. If that assertion is axiomatic, then we should, perhaps, transform the entirety of this article into a brief mentioning upon related articles--such as Proboscidea. I challenge the contention that this order is important in the history of systematics--if it is obsolete, we should heed it not.
Ergo, I propose we eschew with the usage of this order in any context, regardless of the relative formality. By so doing, we may cull, or even quash entirely, the ignorance of the masses in regards to this subject, and potentially even promote further gain of more relevant and contemporary knowledge.
There are flaws in this argument, I am well aware, so I invite you to counter--it allows me to extricate my viewpoints from their grasp. Ghost Lourde (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Ghost Lourde