Talk:Gigantopithecus

Primates Unassessed

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removed Line

Either species could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge much in the way it is thought humans may have brought themselves to the New World. I have removed this line because it sounds to me like cryptozoological speculation to explain Bigfoot. How could a creature that lived in tropical or subtropical climates survive the intense cold of Siberia (during the Ice Age no less!) to reach the Bering Land Bridge? Nik42 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate article

There is already another article that covers the exact same creature. A merge is in order —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.41.45 (talk • contribs) .

Which article? There are currently 3, and none should be merged as far as I can tell.... One for the genus, and two for two of the three species. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the other page they said about Gigantopithecus blacki it seems the exact same but phrased differntely --Climax Void 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the genus. There are three species, and artciles for two of them have been started. No merge is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line in the intro

Isn't this line a bit vague?

"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with better adapted species were the main reasons."

Why not just say:

"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with humans were the main reasons."

· AO ^Talk 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because perhaps it was other species it was in competition with, not humans per se. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Should be merged with "Gigantopithecus blacki" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.85.115 (talk • contribs).

Why? There are multiple species of Gigantopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there's three articles, Gigantopithecus, Gigantopithecus blacki and Gigantopithecus giganteus. The last one is basically a stub and two sentences, the first two are about the same length and cover much of the same information. I think the genus article could easily cover both. Discussion? WLU (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per my above rationale. WLU (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. There's no need for a change, no matter how small the stubs are. It's room for growth. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but right now, giganteus is nothing at all and looks like it'll never be expanded. I'm suggesting a merge now, with no prejudice against spinning the articles off when they get bigger. Right now there's so much duplication between the genus page and G blacki that it's a re-wording of the same page. An another option, what about just making G. g into a section within the genus? WLU (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The current setup, with so much duplication between Gigantopithecus blacki and Gigantopithecus, is terrible. The reasonable options are either to make it all fit in the Gigantopithecus article (which seems fine, given that Gigantopithecus giganteus will never be more than a small subsection), or move most of the material into the sub-articles and leave the Gigantopithecus article as essentially a pair of links. As I said, the first option seems better to me. - Atarr (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a third alternative, I would suggest the possibility of editing the blacki article down to a stub. This seems somehow less elegant than the other two options, but it does make it easier to split it out into two articles if a bunch more information abut Gigantopithecus giganteus suddenly comes to light. - Atarr (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, spin off species pages later if needed. B.S. Lawrence (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, makes sense to me. AstarothCY (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, nearly identical contentHelikophis (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A herbivore? An herbivore?

The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. Thanks. AstarothCY (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. that's one example. It's not wrong, if you say "her-biv-or-ous". But if you say "er-biv-or-ous", then "an" is correct. [1]. Reverting. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a supporting citation that demonstrates how what I am saying is more valid. I'd be interested to see examples of use of "an herbivore" in similarly credible sources. While "an herbivore" may not be grammatically incorrect, until you can demonstrate (as I have) that this is something most people would recognize as grammatically correct, I don't see how it can be used. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so I'll wait a couple of days for your response and supporting evidence before reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a citation for the general usage of "a" vs "an" with regards to the pronunciation or silence of the leading "h" of a noun. It is a matter of pronunciation. As such, it does not get changed from the original, just as British vs. American Englishisms should not get changed. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation lacks credibility. It does not come from a credible source at all and it doesn't even make a convincing argument, not to mention that even if "an historic" was "correct", that means very little as to whether "an herbivore" is correct because I'm sure you know full well that the English language loves exceptions (or rules that apply to only one word). Of course it's a matter of pronunciation, the question is which one is more likely to seem unusual to most people, and I am pretty certain the answer is "an herbivore". To illustrate my point, do a google search for "an herbivore" and "a herbivore". You should find that you get 33,900 results for the former and 97,100 results for the latter. To further prove the point, do a Google Scholar search for those terms to find similar results. AstarothCY (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You help to prove my point. The difference in usage is less than an order of magnitude. The difference in scholarly usage (4390 for "a herbivore" and 2730 for "an herbivore") is even smaller. Neither are incorrect, so there is no need to change it. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your reasoning. If I revert you now, there would be no reason to revert me back. In fact, if we are going by the measure of google hits, there IS reason for me to revert. Even if we don't go by it, what is your rationale for reverting me in the first place? AstarothCY (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose that when you found the article, you didn't like that it used the word "colour", because your preference is to use "color". You might change the article, and I'd be justified in reverting it back. Neither are wrong. Both are right. One is predominant, but that predominance is inconsequential. The same is true for "an herbivore" and "a herbivore". Neither are wrong. Both are right. One is predominant, but that predominance is inconsequential. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let's just carry on reverting back and forth, shall we? AstarothCY (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave off. Keep it as is. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a rationale for my edit. You have not provided one for reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? We've been over this. If you don't provide a rationale, I'm reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When two differemt possibilities are correct, use the one originally used in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...except I've shown several reasons why "a herbivore" is a better choice, and you haven't shown any. AstarothCY (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Pronouncing "herbivore" with a silent "h" is the rarer form in US English, and certainly much rarer outside the US. Why is someone insisting it take precedence? --77.96.133.241 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's how I and everyone I've talked to say it. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't suggesting that as your source of credibility for this edit? AstarothCY (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to UtherSRG} It's good to know you live in such a rarified and quaint area. "A herbivore", it stays. --77.96.133.241 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]