Talk:Ursavus

Not to be nit-picky, but isn't using the term 'endemic' odd for a genus that existed across Euopre, Asia, Africa, and North America? Paddling bear (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is! And funny how North America is always mentioned first, even if a species did not originate from there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanLeMagne (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Ursavus elmensis is the first identifiable bear in the fossil record. It deserves its own page. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is not enough information on the page to merit its separate from Ursavus, AND that the claim that U. elmensis "is the first identifiable bear in the fossil record" is clearly contradicted by the facts that U. pawniensis predates it by a little under 7 million years, and that there were several contemporary species.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply saying that U. elmensis is special does not automatically mean that it deserves its own page. In order for U. elmensis to deserve its own page, it should have an indepth description of the species, anatomy, and mention of the holotype and where it was found. But, if its page is just going to be a bare-bones stub mentioning how it's "the dawn bear," and how it had a cameo in a National Geographics documentary, while the genus page is also a bare-bones stub, it's better off as a redirect. Or, rather than waste both of our time bickering with me, you could try using the information in those two sources you found to, I don't know, expand this page, or even find enough information to make pages for all of the species.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that the status U. pawniensis is debated and numerous sources in the scientific literature list U. elemensis as the oldest bear species and the most primitive member of Ursavus. Oh well, facts be damned on Wikipedia. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can try finding information and references to expand both articles and find more information to justify splitting U. elmensis. Or, you can just waste people's time by moaning and bitching about how people won't agree with you just because you say so.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)