Talk:Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I want to do an article on the Tasmanian Devil cartoon character. There is already a page called Tasmanian devil that has a dummy link to a page called Tasmanian Devil cartoon character. I think that's a bit unintuitive. If someone wants to link to the cartoon character, they will most likely type in his name as it is officially written, Tasmanian Devil. The capitalized "Devil" keeps the link from going to the page about the real-world mammal.
So, what should I call my article? I'd prefer Tasmanian Devil, but if y'all think this will make for to much ambiguation, I'll call it Tasmanian Devil cartoon character. -- Brian Smithson 6:24 (UTC) 3-22-03
- IMO Tasmanian Devil is fine. For better or worse we aleady have quantum leap/Quantum Leap and red dwarf/Red Dwarf. --mav 07:06 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
-
- IMHO, this is fine, BUT each page should have a disambig link to the other. jaknouse 01:55 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)
-
- Semi on-topic, earlier today, someone created an entry Tasmanian Devil about the cartoon character modelled on a Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii)), the entry for which (under Wikipedia's weirdo animal naming rules) has long been at Tasmanian devil. What should be done?
- The first thing that should be done is to review the discussion that preceded the creation of the article. :)
- (At the time of this writing, said discussion is on the Village pump page, about halfway up from this discussion.)
- --Paul A 09:12 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
- Semi on-topic, earlier today, someone created an entry Tasmanian Devil about the cartoon character modelled on a Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii)), the entry for which (under Wikipedia's weirdo animal naming rules) has long been at Tasmanian devil. What should be done?
-
-
-
- Ahh. I see. Thankyou Paul. Two comments: (a) It should have been mentioned on Talk:Tasmanian devil, so that interested people could stand a rough chance of finding it in the first place. (b) It's a really dumb way to name an article in this instance. The name of the animal is Tasmanian Devil (capital "D", see any field guide) and now we have an entry under the correct name of the animal about an ephermeral and subsiduary thing! Tannin 09:27 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually, field guides tend to have it wrong. Talk to any biologist, and you'll be told that English names of organisms should always be in lower case unless one of the words is a proper noun, in which case only the proper noun should be capitalized, such as Tasmanian devil, or Virginia pine. There is, obviously, a gap here between accepted scientific usage and popular usage, but the point is that Tasmanian devil is correct as far as the scientific community goes. jaknouse 15:13 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On the contrary: see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora and fauna) for an extended list of examples. Tannin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is silly. "Tasmanian Devil" is a proper noun since it is the name of a particular singular thing. "Tasmanian devil" is the name of a group of animals - it is not a proper noun. As is explained on the above talk page field guides are not good sources on capitalization. Published manuals of style are'. I've never seen Tasmanian devil or bald eagle etc capitalized as you suggest in any biology textbook, any dictionary or any other encyclopedia. The only sources that are doing things in a "really dumb way" are the field guides --mav
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Seven hardcover volumes at $400 each and you are calling it a "field guide"? Hoolie Doolie! Tannin
-
-
-
-
-
-
end from wikipedia:village pump
In the article is the following:
- Fossil evidence shows that Tasmanian Devils retained a place until around 600 years ago. (About 200 years before European colonisation.)
This implies that European colonisation of Australia began about 400 years ago, which is wrong; European exploration began then, but the earliest known colonisation was in 1788, only 215 years ago. The question is, which part is wrong: "around 600 years", "About 200 years", or both? :Securiger 07:30, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This has now been fixed... 600 years was correct, 200 years was wrong (according to the first page referenced by the article).
Contents |
[edit] Devil Facial Tumour Disease
I'm skeptical that young devils are not susceptible to this disease. If this were true, the disease would disappear naturally once the current adult generation died out (less than six years), and the many expensive control measures would seem to be an overreaction. What would be the mechanism by which devils born after a certain date were immune?
[edit] Bears No Resemblance?
The cartoon devil looks a great deal like the real thing, at least inasmuch as Bugs Bunny looks like a rabbit. Why there are so many references to the cartoon devil looking nothing like a real one is beyond me!
[edit] Video Game
Anyone remember the Atari video game? Was it just "Taz" or "Tazmania?" It would be relevant to mention it here. --feitclub 18:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Achilles heel vs nemesis
I don't think AH is right. An AH is an apparently minor weakness in a powerful person (or thing) that leads directly to their downfall. Mrs Taz is a) not minor; b) not in Taz but separate from him; c) not the direct cause of Taz's downfall. I'd argue for "but Taz's romantic feelings for her still prove to be his Achilles heel..."
What does "only real" resemblance mean? It's POV, considering that Taz isn't actually real.
- They're trying to say "the only resemblance that isn't debatable" or "the only resemblance that isn't a stretch"
However I think that's way wrong, Taz looks a great deal like a tasmanian devil (as looney tunes characters go), and someone should really take time to sit down and analyze that thoroughly and remove these unfair "looks nothing like the real thing" comments.
[edit] Latest cuts
I put back some of what was cut in the latest flurry of edits. Some of the edits didn't make sense (talking about Setzer's hatred of the character before even talking about his first cartoon), and others just seemed like they were trying to change what were in my opinion more interesting words for more common ones just for the sake of being common. I can buy some of the changes that were made on POV basis, but the ones I put back in don't strike me as particularly POV. I hope this is a reasonable compromise between my original phrasings and what y'all had changed to. BrianSmithson 21:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tasmanian Government?
Can someone provide a source for the bit about the Tasmanian Government? If no one does, I'm removing that section. -- BrianSmithson 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)