Content deleted Content added
Connorlong90 (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 188:
===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)
Line 338:
::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==
| |||