User talk:Aremisasling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Aremisasling, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! pamri 05:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Animal cats

Hi. The categories are nested within each other. If something is in Category:Pleistocene mammals, it doesn't need to also be in Category:Pleistocene life. It's a redundancy. --DanielCD 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think you can improve on what's there, by all means go for it. Sounds like a good idea. --DanielCD 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smilodon

It was a reversion error on my part, and I've reverted myself. Thanks for the heads up. :) – ClockworkSoul 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • No worries, thanks for the quick response. I've removed my post on your talk page and responded in the discussion page for the Smilodon. Keep up the good work. --aremisasling 04:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories - Life through Geological Time

Hi Aremisasling

I like your idea of having a nested epochal classification of living organisms through time. I've been making a few new categories along the lines you suggest. My only concern is with your definition of "animal". By "animal" do you mean metazoan (scientific definition), vertebrate, tetrapod (common definition, e.g. many people think of insects as "bugs" rather than "animals"), "higher" tetrapod, mammal, or what?

Hmm, ok i just re-read what you wrote on your user page - you include echinoderms, worms, etc under animal (the proper scientific definition). Duhh, should've read more carefully the first time before saying the above! Ok, my suggestion now is that your kingdom-based classification is much too broad. It means that we wouldn't have more than two or three subcategories under "<geological era> life" - protists, plants, and animals (fungi are poorly represented in the fossil record, and prokaryotes aren't very interesting in the Phanerozoic). This results in an unnecessary large number of nested categories, which makes it tedious clickling though each one. It would be much better imho to just have the top classification as "Life" (which you have), and under that have the phylum and, where necessary, class level classification.

The category "animals" can still be kept as a colloquial term for what the man in the street recognises as an animal (generally a tetrapod)

It might also be an idea (if we are to do this in a serious way) to scrap the term "prehistoric" as in archeology etc it refers to paleolithic, neolithic, and so on (i.e. before history).

M Alan Kazlev 08:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of private spaceflight companies

I've just tabulated the lists; what do you think? — Jack · talk · 01:27, Thursday, 30 August 2007