Talk:Cervalces scotti

Comments

I've searched for a public-domain picture to use on this article, but so far I haven't found any. (I've done Google Image searches on "Stag-moose" and "Cervalces scotti", which turned up excellent drawings like this one from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and this one from the American Museum of Natural History, but since neither of those is a US governmental entity, I don't believe the images are in the public domain. If any ambitious editor can find a drawing or picture that we can use, that would be an excellent addition.--HughGRex 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that the section "Evolution" contains behavioural information which is presented as fact rather than conjecture. This is obviously not appropriate in an article about an animal which went extinct in the Pleistocene. The source cited for this section ([1]) appears to have been equally questionable in quality, to be incomplete (one subheading lacks text), and to have the same writing style as the quoted source, leading me to suspect that the Wikipedia article and this source share the same author. This section needs to be rewritten, with the editor relying on reputable sources.124.148.242.21 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, that particular section was written under the assumption that the stag-moose behaved like modern deer, but, on the other hand, you make a very valid point about it being conjecture. In my opinion, it should be excised entirely.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I actually popped in here to ask the same question. I'm surprised it still remains. This article is in dire need of a rewrite by a proper editor, I'd do it myself but am unsure how to go about it without being tagged a vandal. 2601:5C1:100:28BD:DDA0:40A9:213:98B9 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Be bold. Most editors will see that you're obviously not vandalizing.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No action necessary. The article was moved to Stag-moose and a separate article Cervalces latifrons has been created. Per some of the comments, Cervalces should be a stub for the genus. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Cervalces → Cervalces scotti – The article is about the species Cervalces scotti and not the genus Cervalces. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support I've moved it temporarily to the common name "Stag-moose", so that a separate genus page can be created. An alternative move could be to merge the two species articles into a genus article, which could then be one, comprehensive article. Such is often done with many other palaeontology genus articles, since there often isn't much to say about one fossil species of a genus that don't apply to the other. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would oppose merging the two articles Stag-moose and Cervalces latifrons. My new article on the latter is substantial. I would be happy to create a stub page for the genus Cervalces if required, but as far as I know, it contains only two species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If each species has an article, the genus usually gets an article as well. FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Seems like it leaves one species out.[2] I think a better move would be to include some info on the other species here too. If it had been monotypic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Single-species_articles FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this[3] In that case, we should have a separate genus page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image

If this particular Megafauna had a snout or muzzle similar to a modern deer or elk versus a moose, then why are we using an image that looks like a moose? Why is this not going to be confusing to general readers? Evenrød (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

stag-moose vs. elk-moose

The recent literature seems to give preference to the term "elk moose" over "stag-moose" for Cervalces scotti. Would it make sense to instead title this article "elk moose"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I would think it would be better to simply name the article Cervalces scotti, and dispense with trying to figure out which common name is more common.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. Also, this would fit the example for how wikipedia handles the other species in this genus, Cervalces latifrons (broad-fronted moose). For now, I created a redirect from "elk moose" to stag-moose. Lets see what other editors think.Sbelknap (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)