Talk:List of pholidotans

This list is a current featured list candidate. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After the list has been promoted or archived, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FLC closes.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance 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.

I suggest that this article should be merged in to the family article Manidae (did so but was reverted by author). I don't see a compelling reason why we would need a separate article that duplicates all of Manidae and then adds a species list. This is good material, but there are only eight species, and the relevant table could be added to the family article without issues - plus or minus the added introductory paragraph (probably good to port over as well). This is not a case of huge taxon where links and summaries for species have to be farmed out to another article to avoid bloating the parent; instead we get unnecessary splintering. I am getting the impression that the main motivator here is to get a Featured List candidate going, which is frankly not a reason at all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree When there are a very large number of genera in a family (or species in a genus), a separate list article prevents the main article becoming unbalanced, but this is clearly not the case here. I also think it's bad practice to have duplicated information: families should list only genera, and then each genus article should list its species. Updating when this approach isn't followed (as it hasn't been for spiders, for example) inevitably leads to inconsistencies. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Your thoughts now? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye: basically I agree with Jts1882 below; there's no need for two articles. Whatever happens, this article should not be called "List of": it's far more than a list. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I think you should see their second comment below, where they are in support of this article remaining. Having said that, I would like to know whether this article, which now has a broader scope and an extinct species list, should be redirected to Manidae or not? Vote agree or disagree. Thanks, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye: I've seen all the comments. All I wish to say is that (a) articles should avoid duplication since this makes maintenance difficult and frequently results in inconsistencies (b) this article should not be called "List of .." since list articles should be lists with only a brief introduction. This isn't an area I normally edit in, so I am indifferent to exactly how fixes are made, and am happy to leave it to other editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear you. Thanks for responding. I will definitely take your comment into consideration. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that only one article is needed, but the new one is far more developed, so which should be merged with which because of the edit history. However, as List of manids has one content editor, Wolverine_X-eye, the history isn't an issue if they copy the new material over to Manidae. The only thing missing is a list of the extinct species, which I think should be somewhere in the main text as well as the cladogram.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no need for all of this. This article does not duplicate the information at Manidae; what I'm doing is trying to assist PresN with his mammal lists. I see no problem with this, and PresN also sees no problem with this. I suggest Elmidae to please cut this out. I don't know why you are trying to ruin my hard work, but just know that your plan won't work here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not evaluate this list in comparison to Manidae, but instead to Pangolin (and in fact suggested that it should be List of pholidotans). It's not clear to me why we have a separate stub article for the only extant family in the order. I didn't previously make this list as 8 items is lower than my threshold, but it makes more sense to me to have Pholidota/pangolin + list of pholidotans than to have Pholidota + Manidae with the latter holding the table. --PresN 11:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a list of Pholidota might make somewhat more sense, as this could encompass a reasonable number of fossil species in the order. The article Pholidota is also already quite a bit larger, so separating out such a list would be more reasonable. So maybe the scope should be extended accordingly? - Re separate stub article for the only extant family in the order: this seems like the normal point of forking for monotypy in our system? Where would you want to put the enumeration of genera in this case if not at the family level? (Right, back to ruining Wolverine's work for the fun of it, as is clearly my nefarious secret plan) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opossum is both Didelphimorphia and its only extant family, Didelphidae. Same with Colugo (Dermoptera/Cynocephalidae), Hyrax (Hyracoidea/Procaviidae), and Elephant shrew (Macroscelidea/Macroscelididae), at which point I stopped looking. So, not without precedent. --PresN 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Bit of a mixed system there. See e.g. Phoenicopteriformes but Flamingo (only extant family therein). But it does seem to hold for mammalian orders. So would you suggest folding Manidae into pangolin? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the much better option since the article (pangolin) largely discusses living species. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...I mean, you could have shown the good sense of actually waiting for what other people think of the idea before galloping off into the sunset on your own again with that page move... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But on the bright side, the issue has been resolved. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fuck it has. I have reverted your falling-over-your-own-feet redirect of Manidae. If you can't show good sense, we DO expect you to show some decency and give others a chance to comment before they have to clean up after you. Good grief. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manidae should not be redirected. There are extinct families with articles and it doesn't make sense that they exist and there is no article for the extant family. All extant mammal families should have articles unless they are monotypic (see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. While the move is premature, I think a List_of_pholidotans with a broader scope is better than List of Manids duplicating the scope of Manidae.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I envy people who have never met you. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is inappropriate, you need to cool it. These articles do have a lot of overlap though so something should be merged – pending resolution of the discussion. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come you are singling me out, when Elmidae literally insulted me up there? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you have a history of rash decisions and page ownership that we have all noticed. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - The size rationale is good enough for me that this should be merged to Manidae. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge to Pangolin would be better. That's bit weird that this article doesn't have the names of the species listed. Reywas92^Talk 19:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a list to pangolin will only clutter things, as the page is already quite large on its own. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it needs a list of species and basic information about each like range, even if not this full table. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what this list provides. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since closure is being sought. This did drop off my radar a little. In my view, List of pholidotans (which probably should rather be List of Pholidota) would be a reasonable venue to provide an expanded list that also covers the fossil taxa, but would require some substantial added value - not just five lines listing fossil species; otherwise we are right back to a duplicate of Manidae with a few added frills. As for redirecting Manidae, it would require more discussion and certainly should not be undertaken as some kind of desperate ploy to make the proposed list seem more functional. I hold this redirection to be not a good idea irrespective of the format being present in some other mammal articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can surely expand the list if that is what is needed. Just waiting to see if others object to this. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Elmidae: How's the article looking? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 10:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are wasting my freaking time. I asked you a question and now you are ignoring me? Wow, what a waste of time and energy it has been trying to reason with you. Never ever am I doing this again. If I have to go the extra mile to ensure that you and I never interact again, then that's exactly what I'll do. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... do you think my life revolves around you? I suspect our future interactions will depend on whether you manage to keep your ego and doubtful impulses in check sufficiently so that your actions don't require constant double-checking. If you can't even wait a day or two for an answer before channeling a toddler again, why should I bother to constructively work with you? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are being a petulant child again, Kevin. You've been blocked before for your behavior. Do you need another forced time-out? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I got a bit heated there. Apologies from my side. I think I will seize participation from this discussion to focus on other stuff, like getting bull shark to GA. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]