Talk:Pakicetidae

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I moved the page Pakicetids to Pakicetid since that's the singular form of the word. The page should really be moved to Pakicetidae or Pakicetinae, but I wasn't sure what the consensus was of those involved with this page. Are we recognizing full family status for this group or are we treating it as a subfamily of Protocetidae? The term pakicetid is just a way of referring a member of the family Pakicetidae and the technical family name would be the more appropriate home for this page. --Aranae 04:31, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am all for moving it to Pakicetidae!! The treatment as a subfamily has not reached wide consensus (yet) as far as I can see. Fedor (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

The article says that only skull fragments have been found, then goes on in detail about limb characteristics. Is there something missing? Kortoso (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article says that all parts of the skeleton are known, but that there have been no complete individual skeleton found yet.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

@Plantdrew: I asked over on Talk:Pakicetus the following. Another user agreed with me and removed the photo. I realise now that I should have also put this notice here too.

"I am going to delete the "skull of P. inachus, at Natural History Museum, London" this reconstruction is terrible, it was based on a braincase only before the skull was found, so the entire snout had to be made up, the eyes are totally wrong, and so is the nose opening. I will add a better more recent photo.--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to remove the photo from the article, as per your specifications.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

The recreation really is poor and I have removed the photo from this page too. --Akrasia25 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

Basic information to add to this article (in order to help make it more properly encyclopedic): approximately how large was this animal, in terms of length and weight? Anyone visiting this article would expect to find such information here, yet it's not here. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]