Talk:Palorchestes

Past mistake

According to Chasing Kangaroos by Tim Flannery, Palorchestes was originally thought to be a giant kangaroo, so that the Australian Museum in Sydney built a statue of a three meter tall kangaroo, the size they thought it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 18:46, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Trunk or no trunk?

For a while now I've seen art pieces that restore Palorchestes with large nostrils & lips, rather a tapir-like trunk. Is there a new paper going the rounds that I'm not aware of? Monsieur X (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ref removed

Moved from User talk:Headbomb#ref removed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You removed a reference here, should I assume similar (but different) references perhaps made look it it was a duplicate? cygnis insignis 20:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a duplicate, just pointless. One is the abstract for the article, the other one is the article proper. There's no need for the abstract to be cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

An author disagreed with that, so I inserted it. Please use an edit summary. cygnis insignis 09:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well whoever that author is is wrong. Take it to talk. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't, take it to the talk, just reverted knowing I was wrong to have done such a thing. Why do you suppose that the author was also wrong? Is it possible you are wrong, that the first mention was important to the law of precedence and taxonomic history? I willing to entertain the possibility you are correct. cygnis insignis 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Because there is no point in having the abstract referenced. Taxonomy is established through fully published articles, not abstracts of them. Again, take it to talk. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded, and can't remember what persuaded me to add it. If I do, remember, are you going to object even if I elaborate why this citation is relevant and properly included here? I didn't have to think hard about when an abstract was sufficient for acceptance as proper publication, a name and bit of description, even if full details were later, or never, published. cygnis insignis 15:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you have a valid rationale, sure, but there's is really nothing in the abstract that isn't present in the full paper. If you want to date the taxonomy as from being of 1873, you have that in the 'received/read' dates in the article. Any content that you want to cite from the abstract you can just as well cite from the article. Citing the abstract is just pointing the reader to a less useful, redundant source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)