Talk:Augustynolophus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Augustynolophus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeoecology section

Why is it growing so much with rather unrelated information? This is an article about this animal, not about Laramidia. Most of that info should be moved there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about adding conservation status to all animals

Should all animals have conservation status added to their speciesbox? 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because only recently extinct animals are covered by conservation organisations. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is already on species extinct for several hundred years (so not covered by conservation organisations) like Haast's_eagle extinct in 1400 and North African elephant extinct in 300. Where is the line drawn. There is a lack of consistency. 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The line is drawn by whether they're featured on the IUCN redlist or other such system. We as editors don't draw the line. FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been repeatedly trying to tell you that giving conservation status to species not already given official conservation status by official conservation organizations like the IUCN is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, but you appear to have a bad habit of becoming selectively illiterate of whatever advice you do not want to accept.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fink you have serious anger management issues, consider seeing a therapist. 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, instead of being so pompous and arrogantly gung-ho, if you could be assed, instead, to notice that of the hundreds to thousands-years extinct animals officially given conservation status by official conservation organizations, they all range in age from the Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene, you wouldn't need to make such pitiful attempts at snideness to cover your selective illiteracy.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this RfC to get a consistent position across all pages but you seem to be only interested in starting a fight. Get help. 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Haast Eagle is not on the Redlist or other lists as it has been extinct for several hundred year. Should we be removing the status for those pages? 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should not have conservation status if they're not officially recognized by any official conservation organizations.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RfC specifically about Augustynolophus, or is it broader in scope? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broader scope, should this RfC be moved somewhere else? 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's something you want changed in general, I'd suggest the tree of life or palaeontology projects. But I think it'll be dead on revival. It seems like you just think there shouldn't be inconsistency, which everyone already agrees with. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, if the RfC is just about Augustynolophus, the wording all animals is wrong. If it's broader in scope, it's at the wrong venue. Either way, it needs fixing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]