Talk:Homo floresiensis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleHomo floresiensis is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2004.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 23, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
October 23, 2006Featured article reviewKept
March 22, 2009Featured article reviewKept
November 10, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 23, 2009.
Current status: Former featured article

Lead[edit]

I am disappointed by the state of the article's lead. It is currently very short, having been cut back from the longer version that was there in the past, for example in this revision. Looking through the article's revision history, it seems that most of the cut backs were made by Kortoso in April this year. I think the cut backs were excessive. The older version of the lead may have been too long, but the current version goes too far in the other direction. It fails to mention basic factual information such as the age of the remains. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ebu Gogo[edit]

I deleted the section on Ebu Gogo as no longer relevant in view of the redating. An editor has reverted stating that it is historically relevant. I do not agree. It was always borderline fringe speculation, and now it is clearly wrong it has no place in an article on a serious scientific subject. What do other editors thing? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think speculation on recent survival is the main reason 90% of readers will find their way to this article. I don't think it can be left out, but perhaps it can be dismissed to a sentence or two.-- (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I have trimmed Ebu Gogo which had too much undue information about the extinct hominid as if the connection between H.f. and the Ebu Gogo lore were an established fact. I agree that the redating downgrades these speculations from dubious to debunked, but do you happen to know a source which explicitly says the latter? I still want to keep some mention of it in the Ebu Gogo article, because many readers will look it up because of H.f., but I want to add a sentence that puts the hypothesis into the right perspective. –Austronesier (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
You could try [1]. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

there are two different "dating" sections[edit]

^^ 31.220.221.5 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The first one is a brief summary so I have moved it to the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomic Error[edit]

Based on all my other reading on this topic the following statement is inaccurate:

"within the taxonomic tribe of Hominini, which includes all species that are more closely related to humans than to chimpanzees"

Chimpanzees are a part of the Hominini tribe (as correctly pointed out in other Wikipedia articles related to this topic). The quote above should probably say, "more closely related to humans than to gorillas".

Dmulliga (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Dan Mulligan, Baton Rouge, LA

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The 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) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)