Talk:Mammalodon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

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

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

The proposed deletion edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that this article was nominated for deletion. The argument was "No notability". Bluntly put I disagree with that notion, to my knowledge Wikipedia considers any existing or extinct species of animal to be worthy of inclusion. Of course this animal is not well-known, but neither are articles like Primosten (a Croatian town). Mammalodon is also described in encyclopedias about prehistoric animals, so why shouldn't Wikipedia describe it? Jerkov 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mammalodon length edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I Agree, the page should remain, my question is 60cm long? surely that can't be right Elvisfromtj (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found it in the reference the Evolution of Aquatic Tetrapods on page 25 if it is not contradicted elsewhere than it should stay. A 60 cm long whale does seem unlikely but this was a very early whale and there are examples of other small whales for example modern porpoises. I will search for an alternate reference to confirm. 21:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarbon (talk • contribs)

I agree the current size of 60cm is wrong. What I had put down must be condylobasal size therefore the current length is wrong. I've yet to find a reference for the its total length though. Jarbon (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic