Talk:American mastodon

This article was nominated for merging with Mastodon on February 2013. The result of the discussion was to Merge.

This redirect 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

Palaeontology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles

Single-species vs. genus articles for extinct taxa

Wikipedia often has articles down to the genus level only for extinct taxa, to avoid creating a lot of stub articles for species that have little unique content. However, in cases of recently extinct mammals where a lot of information is available, such as the American mastodon, single-species articles have a stronger justification. See WikiProject Palaeontology for a discusiion of this. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree that this species is notable enough, like the woolly mammoth is to "mammoth", M. americanum is almost synonymous with the name "mastodon". FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was it redirected to the genus? cygnis insignis 17:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a stub. It has since been expanded, and has potential, since it is by far the best known species. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mastodons Distribution

Is there a specific reason the distribution is relegated to the select few places that are mentioned in article. For example "North of Fort Wayne, makes it sound like is the only location in Indiana to have remains, when there are many locations. Fulton County Mastadon Indiana Mastadons

And there are several more. It makes it sound as the Mastadon locations are more rare in these areas than they actually are. Anybody want to fix this? Mastadons are relatively common in the Southern Great Lakes region of Northern Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustun84 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]