Talk:Arctoidea
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The article contradicts itself at the moment
editCurrently, the introduction states that the Amphicyonidae belong to the Arctoidea. According to the family tree, they don't. What's the current state of knowledge? --KnightMove (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I could be wrong here, but it looks to me that the introduction states that the now extinct Hemicyonidae belong to Arctoidea, but Amphicyonidae don't. So... dog-bears do but bear-dogs don't... obviously... WormTT
- I'm very sorry, I must have had blinders on. --KnightMove (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. Like I say, I was surprised that dog-bears aren't the same as bear-dogs. But then I guess tions and ligers aren't the same... WormTT 15:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry, I must have had blinders on. --KnightMove (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Mustelida?
editThe article asserts that "Mustelida" is the musteloid/pinniped clade. No usage of that term is to be found in the source given, and I can find no other. Anyone have such a source, or is this an error? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about rank
editWhy scientific classification section says that the infraorder Arctoidea is in the unranked clade Canoidea? Isn't Canoidea a superfamily in the infraorder Cynoidea? Jako96 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the taxobox? I believe you are correct enough. I have adjusted the taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. And can you adjust the superfamily Canoidea's place and rank in the Canidae page? Because it wrongly shows it as an unranked clade and above the Infraorder Cynoidea, but it has to be directly under the Infraorder Cynoidea and directly above the family Canidae as a superfamily. I know how to edit ranks but I don't know how to edit the place of taxons. Jako96 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- O I figured it out, never mind. Thanks again. Jako96 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. And can you adjust the superfamily Canoidea's place and rank in the Canidae page? Because it wrongly shows it as an unranked clade and above the Infraorder Cynoidea, but it has to be directly under the Infraorder Cynoidea and directly above the family Canidae as a superfamily. I know how to edit ranks but I don't know how to edit the place of taxons. Jako96 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Arctoidea Can't be Ranked as an Infraorder
editArctoidea can't be ranked as an infraorder because it has the suffix "-oidea". Under the ICZN, only superfamilies can have this suffix. Arctoidea is not valid under the PhyloCode either because it does not have a phylogenetic definition. Jako96 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is not our job to decide what ranks are what. It is out job to report what the sources say. If sources say it is an Infraorder, we rank it as an infraorder. If sources don't, then we don't. The code has no standing to what we do on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- But why? This is straight up WRONG! Jako96 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I understood. Maybe we can state in text that this group is technically not valid? Jako96 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- That is still OR or SYNTH unless you can cite a source directly stating such. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'd cite the ICZN. Is this okay? Jako96 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- No. You'd be doing a SYNTH. You'd have to cite a paper where someone else cites ICZN to de-ranks or re-ranks Arctoidea. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, this taxon is invalid and you're completely okay with it? Jako96 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- When I meant that Arctoidea can't be ranked as an infraorder, I meant that Arctoidea is invalid. Jako96 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- And there are eight references in the article that says you are wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm so sorry man. Who cares about ICZN? Of course the references are a better source than the ICZN! Jako96 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- And there are eight references in the article that says you are wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- When I meant that Arctoidea can't be ranked as an infraorder, I meant that Arctoidea is invalid. Jako96 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, this taxon is invalid and you're completely okay with it? Jako96 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- No. You'd be doing a SYNTH. You'd have to cite a paper where someone else cites ICZN to de-ranks or re-ranks Arctoidea. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'd cite the ICZN. Is this okay? Jako96 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- That is still OR or SYNTH unless you can cite a source directly stating such. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I understood. Maybe we can state in text that this group is technically not valid? Jako96 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- But why? This is straight up WRONG! Jako96 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Suborder Caniformia contradicts
editThis article says 46 mya - 0 may , yet the caniformes article states 43 mya - 0 mya GUG2004FinalWars (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)