Talk:Deinogalerix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Deinogalerix is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Use of free image
The free image doesn't appear to be against the original research policy, so I have reintroduced it. Addhoc 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- The image degrades the quality of the article, so I have removed it. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain why trying to provide an idea of what this animal may have looked like when alive degrades the article beyond only you saying it does.--Mr Fink 01:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Including the views of SilkTork on your talk page, there is a clear consensus to include the image. Addhoc 11:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus and Wiki policy: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images which says: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Including the views of SilkTork on your talk page, there is a clear consensus to include the image. Addhoc 11:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain why trying to provide an idea of what this animal may have looked like when alive degrades the article beyond only you saying it does.--Mr Fink 01:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spineless
I'm sure I know what's meant here, but only because I know hedgehogs have 'em, and I find this ambiguous wording confusing (was it an invertebrate? a coward?). How about "lacking quills/ spines/ (other appropriate terminology)"? I'm going to change it to the 1st option, but won't be offended if someone smarter improves it. sNkrSnee | t.p. 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- How about "quill-less"?--Mr Fink 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I considered that option, but I have to admit that I find it an awkward word to pronounce, even if only in my head. So for that reason I went with "lacking quills", and still prefer it. Frankly, I'm not 100% certain "quill-less" is really a word. However, I'm a newcomer to this page, and you're the art-drawing guy, so I won't revert. sNkrSnee | t.p. 23:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Upon immediate reflection (curse my hair-trigger mouse-finger), I contemplated that I have often heard the phrase "lacking skills", but never "skill-less", perhaps for either or both of my reasons above? Ducks lack bills (not really) but aren't "bill-less", people die without wills but aren't "will-less" &etc... I leave it to you. sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- On third thought, we'll go with your version: sounds better after all.--Mr Fink 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're much more amicable than your handle implies! sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer to interpret it as the German word for "finch," actually.--Mr Fink 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- As do I, rest assured! Have you ever seen a surlier bird? (Please note that the foregoing constitutes a lame attempt to deflect attention from my embarrassing ignorance of birds and German, among other things. I completely disavow all forms of finch chauvinism). sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
you talkin to me?
- Very cranky... I was going to say "Vampire Finch", but it tends to be more sadistic than surly.--Mr Fink 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gory and enlightening, thank you, I feel less guilty about eating poultry now. Given how popular bloodletting was, I'm surprised no one fancied them as helpful little bird doctors. Instead of calling them Darwin's Finches they'd be, I don't know, Florence Nightingales? sNkrSnee | t.p. 06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very cranky... I was going to say "Vampire Finch", but it tends to be more sadistic than surly.--Mr Fink 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're much more amicable than your handle implies! sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- On third thought, we'll go with your version: sounds better after all.--Mr Fink 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Upon immediate reflection (curse my hair-trigger mouse-finger), I contemplated that I have often heard the phrase "lacking skills", but never "skill-less", perhaps for either or both of my reasons above? Ducks lack bills (not really) but aren't "bill-less", people die without wills but aren't "will-less" &etc... I leave it to you. sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I considered that option, but I have to admit that I find it an awkward word to pronounce, even if only in my head. So for that reason I went with "lacking quills", and still prefer it. Frankly, I'm not 100% certain "quill-less" is really a word. However, I'm a newcomer to this page, and you're the art-drawing guy, so I won't revert. sNkrSnee | t.p. 23:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
