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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
rodents 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.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles
An incomplete move request at
Wikipedia:Requested moves indicated that there was a proposal to move this page to the animal's scientific name. Below are the comments that the proposal generated there, which generally did not support a move. If the move is still desired, please file a full request using the procedure described at
WP:RM. Thank you.
Dekimasuよ! 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't actually contest the move, but animal article titles are covered under
WP:ToL and common names may be used, this should be removed from here and discussed on the talk page of the article, then a consensus reached. —
KP Botany 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment:
WP:TOL says: "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise." I don't personally have any sense of whether "horned gopher" is "well-known" enough to qualify. — SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment:As far as I know, they're either known as "Mygaulids" or "Epigaulus." I've never heard of "horned gopher" being used as a common name for them until Wikipedia, especially since most of the books that mention them make a big to-do about how they're related to sewells/mountain beavers.--
Mr Fink 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)reply
For the record, I first heard of them under the name "horned gopher".
DS (
talk) 12:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)reply
An informal name is not necessarily the most commonly used name. In this case it doesn't seem to be, and it should be moved to the scientific name. It even seems horned gopher could refer to the entire family, not just this one genus.
FunkMonk (
talk) 09:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)reply
After looking a bit around, why are we even so sure that "horned gopher" only refers to this particular genus, and not
Mylagaulidae overall? Seems to be various references to the entire group by this name.
FunkMonk (
talk) 02:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)reply
File:F John Series 2 Epigaulus card 24.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.