Talk:Neontology
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neontology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmerbaum. Peer reviewers: Jcswint.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Merge with extant taxon edit
The two terms are about the same subject. Both articles are tiny stubs. We don't have an "extinct taxon" article either. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- A merge seems relevant, as while not entirely synonymous, both stubs are intimately related (neontology is functionally the study of extant taxa and their recently extinct brethren), and a size split is a long ways away. I'm a lumper not a splitter, so lump away! --Animalparty! (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- If extant taxon redirects here, then it should actually define the word; right now this is unclear to readers who came here to know what "extant" means. At an earlier point, it seems to have been bolded in the lede, and defined and even given the singular, but that's all gone now for some reason. Umimmak (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Change 'moose' example to 'dog' edit
I suggest that when this article is next revised, the mammal 'dog' (canine) be used rather than 'moose' as an example of an extant species. Moose are only found in certain areas of the Northern Hemisphere, but dogs are found in all populated areas of the planet. Hence a user from Australia or Vietnam would more readily comprehend the 'present vs. extinct' example if dogs were used as an example of an extant species.
76.69.145.241 (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- But dogs are not really a naturally occurring species (or even a natural species, having been bred by man). It has been brought around the world by man. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 76.69.145.241 and FunkMonk: I agree with 76.69.145.241's concern that the moose is unfamiliar to people in many locations in the world, and I agree with FunkMonk that dog is a bad example. I suggest that a species with Cosmopolitan distribution be used instead. Anything in Category:Cosmopolitan species and its subcategories is fine. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Neontology importance section - can this be deleted? edit
This section seems to have multiple problems
- the title and subject matter are at odds. A more appropriate title would be "the use of neontology in paleontology"
- which begs the next question - is this a notable and appropriate topic?
- alternatively if the title is used - is that a worthwhile topic, given neontology is almost all of biological study?
- evolution is much more the core of paleontology than it is neontology, so the first sentence appears to be nonsense.
- The section has the feel of editor opinion without any genuine informative content
Can this section be deleted? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)