Talk:Digitigrade

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals Low‑importance Digitigrade is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Digitigrade was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Seems to be a dictdef. I think it should go, unless someone can expand it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• If that topic is expanded it could be interesting, maybe it should be marked as a stub. Neonumbers 05:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Gosh this takes me back to my school years, when for each animal we had to memorize whether they were digitigrade or plantigrade (which I notice has no corresponding stub yet), plus their dentition. Move to Wiktionary. — Bill 12:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • And unguligrade. You forgot unguligrade. How could you forget unguligrade? Actually I forgot it, too, but I just looked it up. I keep wanting to put tardigrade in there, too, but cute as those little buggers are, they have absolutely nothing to do with locomotory habit. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• As it stands right now, Move to Wiktionary Nadavspi | talk 17:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or Move to Wiktionary for now. There should be, and could be a good article about the evolution of locomotory habit in mammals. And maybe we already cover this somewhere. If so, plantigrade, digitigrade, and unguligrade should redirect to it. But they only make sense in an integrated article that explains their relationships to each other. Evolutionary, anatomical, and mechanical. By themselves, they can never be much more than dictionary definitions. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Changing to "fat redirect to locomotion as suggested by Wile E. Heresiarch below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Make it a fat redirect (i.e., existing text plus a see-also link) to locomotion, which is, unfortunately, just a stub; it really merits a lengthy discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, add to articles needing attention. --Improv 07:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep —siroχo 08:17, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and list on articles needing attention. It needs a clearer explanation, more links, a picture, and more attention in general. A plantigrade article would also be useful. Deleting what there is now would be a step backwards. Factitious 20:16, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
• keep. Isn't this the sort of thing that some Ballarinas do? Perhaps the article could mention something about that. Sorry, didn't realize it was a term that applies to species, not individual acts of locomotion. Still, Keep, on the grounds that it could very easily turn into an informative encyclopedic article, and we ought to let the wiki process do its magic on stubs, rather than delete them. Posiduck 03:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This is certainly a subject worthy of an article, so I don't see why we should delete it because someone just got off to a start. --Tmh 10:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Expandable. anthony 警告 14:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, stub. Sam [Spade] 18:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, add to needing attention. Encyclopedia-worthy if expanded. Suntiger 03:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep expand. Cross-reference to existing articles. Discuss evolution of locomotion, significance in an evolutionary/survival context of being fast and quiet... significance of digigrant vs ungulant vs plantigrant habits of locomotion. a good stub. move to pages needing attention. Very worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Additionally add dictionary definition to wiktionary, for this and related terms. More references, especially books.Pedant 18:23, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
• Keep & expand -- agree with Pedant. Catherine | talk 03:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• keep this, make it a stub, or redirect us to wikitionary. Colinstu 04:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.