Content deleted Content added
Gnomingstuff (talk | contribs) rv 2023 WP:NOTFORUM |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{
{{WikiProject Africa|class=start|importance=mid|Togo=yes|Togo-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-01-13">13 January 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-05-09">9 May 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UNCG/FMS_115_(Spring_2020)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Jgjaynes|Jgjaynes]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Corymarkell|Corymarkell]], [[User:Kayleighdea|Kayleighdea]].
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 17:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-28">28 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-05-14">14 May 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Maryland,_College_Park/Researching_Environment_and_Culture_(Spring_2019)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:OlamideG|OlamideG]].
Line 186 ⟶ 189:
===Third opinion===
I'm here to give a third opinion. I don't see a hard conflict with [[WP:LEAD]], and [[WP:TREE]] is a project, not a Wikipedia guideline proper. That being said, I can see both sides of this issue. I tend to side with Jwinius's reasoning, but I see that featured articles like [[Cougar]] do not follow this pattern. Therefore, I think it should go back to Ball Python as being the main page name until such a time as the internal standards in WP:TREE are changed. --[[User:Flex|Fl<
:Keep in mind that the people at WP:TREE and those who busy themselves with articles on large mammals have never bothered with the level of organization that is being attempted here: the systematic categorization of scientific names, common names and taxonomic synonyms. Yes, I do things a little differently, but if you like what I'm doing, why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Progress is not possible without deviation from the norm. --[[User:Jwinius|Jwinius]] 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::Deviation from the norm should come with a consensus, not an individual decision. I would love to see standardization across [[WP:AAR]] as a whole, however, how that standard is implemented should be decided by more than one person. I implore you to move this discussion to [[WP:AAR]] where officially policy could potentially change. Otherwise, while we may have some conformity among the differing snake species, [[WP:AAR]] will degrade into less conformity. In the mean time, let's maintain some degree of conformity, by complying with the guidelines set by [[WP:TREE]] [[User:Jhall1468|Jhall1468]] 08:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
==Another Point of View==
Line 336 ⟶ 339:
::I see [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] still escapes you. That's fine. I think the layouts of [[Cane Toad]] and articles similar to it are more fluid, but given that [[Bitis_gabonica]] and other articles like it received [[WP:GA|GA]] status I don't see an issue. That being said, your arguments for scientific names still don't hold. Your arguments for scientific naming conventions are good, however, you failed to give anyone an opportunity to provide counter-arguments. "[[WP:IGNORE|Ignore all rules]]" is great in theory, but you need justification for ignoring those rules, and that justification needs to be presented to the entire Wikipedia community, not just to those who read your talk page. [[WP:PROCESS|Process is important]], because without that, your goal of achieving consistency is going to be entirely broken. When the basic naming conventions of [[Snake]] are in complete contrast to [[Turtle]] or [[Toad]], you render [[WP:AAR|AAR]] to pointlessness.
::You argue on your talk page that using Google search terms as a metric for determining which common name to use is "arbitrary" and "unscientific". However, Wikipedia isn't a science journal, and in many cases this "arbitrary" method is used for notability in [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]]. Furthermore, given Google is the most widely used search engine, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume the average person (which IS Wikipedia's target audience) isn't going to be searching for ''[[Canis lupus familiaris]]'' or ''[[Mus musculus]]''. They are going to be searching for Dog and Mouse. The average person probably isn't familiar with ''[[Python regius]]'', and one could easily argue they'd simple skip over a website titled as such [http://www.google.com/search?q=Ball+Python&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a] if they are looking for Ball Pythons.
::And no, I don't consider it a "bargain" that your work at Wikipedia requires you provide the sole determination as to what naming conventions, and article layouts are used. Holding Wikipedia hostage for you're unwillingness to compromise is, by definition, bad faith. What really confuses me, is that you really have done great work. You've added information that's been missing from several articles on Wikipedia. I can't, for the life of me, why you can't argue your position at [[WP:AAR|AAR]] where this belongs. There is a significant possibility that you could win over enough people to form a consensus, and this could have been avoided altogether. Instead you've taken the position of attacking my contributions at Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. '''[[User:Jhall1468|<
==New photos available from wikimedia==
Line 411 ⟶ 414:
:So, I'd really like to get some European input on this, as I have a vague sense (but nothing more), that the species is called the royal python more often on that side of the pond. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 00:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. I see no controversy here. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
== External links modified ==
Line 462 ⟶ 465:
:::I fully agree that this section is NOT at all necessary and appropriate. A part of it was anyway copy-pasted from various websites. -- [[User:BhagyaMani|BhagyaMani]] ([[User talk:BhagyaMani|talk]]) 07:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
:::: I significantly pared down the captivity section to remove a lot of information that was either uncited, functioning as backdoor how-to husbandry (essentially just how-to information reworded so it read less like directions but the only reason to include that info would be so it could be used as directions), redundant, or contradictory. The edits and rationale for edits are under history. [[User:Connorlong90|Connor Long]] ([[User talk:Connorlong90|talk]]) 01:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
| |||