Talk:Elephant and mammoth ivory
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Is this original work? Even if it is, you might want to rework that last sentence so that it means something to a layperson. -- Zoe
- No, it's based on a PD government article, I would rework it but for some reason when I click edit it's just giving me a blank page. --Imran
Is mammoth always capitalized? Are there other types of ivory that make this article necessary? Tuf-Kat
Wow -- gotta say, this page is almost totally incomprehensible. I have no expertise in the subject, so I won't attempt an edit, but this is incredibly poor quality, not at all up to normal wikipedia standards. It tells the uninformed almost nothing about mammoth ivory. There's more useful information about mammoth ivory on the 'ivory' page! Why is there even an "elephant and mammoth" page? A separate "mammoth ivory" page makes sense, but then you'd want to actually include some information about mammoth ivory! (Sorry to be so harsh, just telling it like it is.) 71.14.181.69 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Redirected
editI went ahead and WP:BOLDly redirected this page to Ivory. I say it's bold primarily because it was created way back in 2002, but since then this subject (or these two subjects) have been covered at ivory, ivory trade, elephant, mammoth, tusk, and probably others. It doesn't provide any significant new information and, most importantly, at least a few of those others cover the subject(s) with a narrower focus, using clearer language, and using more and better sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)