Talk:Fauna of Puerto Rico/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 First two sentences
2 47.5%
3 Congrats
4 Pardon the naïve question
5 sentence

First two sentences

Is endemism a rare enough term that in introducing it it should be explained?: "...endemism (that is, a high rate of...)"? Also, I'm not entirely certain about introducing hard numbers into the very first sentence. Maybe better to pick two or three particularly notable points about the fauna in question and mentioning them in general terms?

OK, so this proves I read the intro, Joel :). I'll try to pick through it as I read more. Marskell 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Endemic and taxonomic are both pretty specialized words, but I can't think of any other terms that are less elitist but which still retain the core meaning. Vranak

47.5%

"Of the 349 bird species, about 120 breed in the archipelago and 47.5% are accidental or rare." It can't mean 47.5% of the birds - they wouldn't be accidental or rare. It can't mean 165 species - that rounds to 47.3%. It might mean 166 species - 166/349=0.47564..., but usually you would round that up to 47.6%. Art LaPella 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was rounded down. Joelito (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Wow. I'm impressed. From User:Joelr31's sandbox in July to Featured Article by the end of October and then featured on the Main Page in January. Great job, everyone. Axem Titanium 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Joelito (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the naïve question

Shouldn't a featured page be at least semi-protected? I don't think I have seen so much vandalism in my (relatively short) career on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Complainer (talk • contribs)

No, on principle it isn't. That violates the whole "anyone can edit" idea. The first article a new user will try to edit is likely to be the mainpaged article. If it says "you can't edit this page" then people will see the "anyone can edit" as dishonest. Being mainpaged is an honour, but it also makes the article something of a sacrificial lamb. Guettarda 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with the general principle but we all know that anything to do with Puerto Rico brings out the worst in certain people. This kind of factor should be considered, IMHO --Complainer 11:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

The fauna of Puerto Rico is similar to poop other island archipelago faunas, exhibiting high levels of endemism, and low, skewed taxonomic diversity.

Come on...why such immaturity...it's an article about a tree frog...put protection on this page now.

Ah, the vandalism is fixed really fast. I wouldn't worry about it.--Acewolf359 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately more has been fixed: "This frog sucked my dick", and a claim along the lines of the first European settlers beeing "queer". ~~Niels C.

sentence

Please clarify this: The native fauna was used by the island's indigenous population as a source of food, while others were used for skins and trade. Rintrah 14:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It should say that some of the native fauna was used for food while other animals were used for skin and trade. Joelito (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)