Talk:Glyptodont

Dunb question

What do the "cross" symbols before the family & genus names in the infobox mean? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a conventional notation to signal that a species or clade is extinct. ArthurWeasley (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RIP, duh. Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Image placement

Two editors have moved the Panochthus frenzelianus image, so that it awkwardly breaks up the Notes section (on my display & browser, at least). Why not leave it at the end, where it won't cause problems? --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style the Notes must go at the end of the article, which means they have to be below the image, not before it. Anaxial (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the MOS WP:Layout#Images as a guideline, with the object of achieving a visually-attractive page -- ie, no overlaps, no bunchups, no awkward placements such as broken-up text. Maybe I'll play with format here again, try something else to avoid the awkward breakup we have now. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gallery image sizes?

User:Anaxial reduced image sizes here.

Are you sure you want them this small? --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• It should be good enough until the article gets more sections and is expanded. As it is, it could probably already be split into different sections. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I just set them to the default, which seems to be the usual method, unless there's a good reason to contrary - and I don't see one here, myself. Remember, if you're a logged in user, you can always change the default for your display, if it doesn't work on your monitor (although, admittedly, this doesn't help most people, since they aren't logged in). Part of the problem, I suspect, is the need to cater for different screen resolutions. Anaxial (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the personal size preferences don't work inside a gallery (& probably never will, for technical reasons). Which is why I usually set them for around 180px, the default outside a gallery. In this case, I think the images are too small to show enough detail for most users. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

They look fine to me, but if the consensus is to specific a size, then I'm not going to argue the point. Anaxial (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll reset them to 180px, & we can see if anyone else comments (or even notices). --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Glyptodonts able to leave their shells?

Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, in her book on the Everglades, "River of Grass," describes the glyptodont as having been able to leave its shell and then return to it. This highly unusual characteristic is left out of most but not all other descriptions of the animal to be found online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.77.150 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense: a glyptodont could not leave its shell, which was permanently attached to its body.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Extinction

According to Matt Ridley in his book "The Origins of Virtue" the large armadillos of South America(Glyptodontidae) were, like the the woolly mammoth, driven to extinction from the excessive hunting of man, rather than a failure to adapt to a new climate.

References

Temporal range contradiction

The temporal range is given as extending from the late Miocene. But an image caption states "Propalaehoplophorus scutes, early Miocene". — Contributed by 2601:0:7280:28D:F47D:2384:B671:1797 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Y Done. Anaxial (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Glyptodon vs. Glyptodont

Is this distinct from Glyptodon? Should these pages be merged? Astrophobe (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Glyptodon refers to a genus, "glyptodont" or (now more correctly, since the demotion from family status) "glyptodontine" refers to the larger subfamily Glyptodontinae. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be moved to the more specific title (like most similar articles). FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Arguments aginst doing this are the entrenched usage of "glyptodont", and the possibility of further taxonomic adjustments when more sequence data from other extinct speices becomes available. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly have no strong feelings about this. I think this article has too many red genus links, though... I made a few stubs, but far to go. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for finding this question and addressing it :) Makes me feel good about Wikipedia that people can find an honest query 3 years later and respond to it thoughtfully! - Astrophobe (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)