User talk:T.carnifex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anybody wishing to comment on my user page, or any conrtibutions I make on other pages, please feel free to make them here. If you also have a question about extinct vertebrates of australia, (in particular those of the pouched-persuasion), ask away.

Contents

[edit] Inked Draft of P. goliah

So, what do you think of the inked draft [1]? Should I begin coloring it, or go back to the drawing board? --Mr Fink (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I reckon begin colouring. It looks accurate enough according to my understanding of the animal. It's a good job. T.carnifex (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marsupial Lion

Maaate! I was just starting to copyedit the current article and convert it from the sensationalist and disjointed scribbling to something more suitable for an encyclopaedia when I came across your User page. It looks great! I would like to grab it and chuck it in the current article which is looking a bit sad and certainly not befitting a magnificent beast such as T. carnifex. If you would prefer to do this yourself then pls go right ahead, otherwise I'll check back in a day or so and start moving it over. Nice work! Secret Squïrrel, approx 06:40, 23 May 2008 (Earth Standard Time) Nearly forgot - I'm inclined to have a seperate article for Thylacoleo providing it doesn't just repeat what is/will be in Marsupial Lion/T.carnifex. That might reduce it to a stub for now but that's ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret Squïrrel (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I've known the Marsupial Lion page has been in need of an over haul for ages, but been a bit reluctant to do it for some reason (didn't want to attract too much attention I suppose), but it's great that you've jumped in and done it. I checked it out a couple of minutes ago, and it's looking awesome. I'm waiting to get a hold of some journal articles to add some stuff about their behaviour, and when I get them, I'll chuck them straight on the Marsupial Lion page. I gotta tell you, it's interesting stuff. T.carnifex (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you cannot be bothered reading then you should not have cast your vote. I am not trying to offend you I'm just going by what I have read in the guidelines. Cazique (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thylacoleonidae Farce

I think I've realised the causation of this problem. You don't read what is before you properly before you comment. I said I didn't want to get involved. I simply wanted to cast a vote and provide a short reason for my vote. I have read the whole discussion, your talk page, UtherSRG's talk page, and the references that have been put forward for the case. I have formulated an opinion based upon what I think is correct and cast my vote. I said that I didn't want to get involved in the argument above, because I thought that it was nearly winding down, and nearing resolution, so I put any comments I had in the vote. Apparently I was mistaken. It's looking like it could drag on for some time... T.carnifex (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry let me rephrase myself, If you cannot be bothered getting involved in the above discussions by refuting the points I say which you think are wrong, then you should not have cast your vote. It wasn't winding down at all, discussions are always open for comment and only wind down when people have reached a concensous on all the points raised.
As an after thought, I'll add that the case for point "Leave it be (marsupial lion and marsupial lions redirect to family page, Marsupial Lions redirects to Marsupial Lion, as per WP:MaM, which this article falls under." is quite strong, and makes sense if you think about it. You searched marsupial lion, looking for the fellest of predatory beasts and instead found the family via the established redirection. Sure, this wasn't the page you were after, may have confused you, and may have been slightly inconvenient, but I would have thought that since it's a well laid out page, from there you could have easily found T. carnifex, and in the process learnt something about the taxonomy of the animal and it's family. When I learn something in a day, I tend to be happy, rather than jump up and down until it's changed so my first opinions are correct. I'm not meaning to offend you here either, I'm just being honest, and trying to perhaps expand you understanding of my stance on the matter, as I obviously wasn't clear enough in the Thylacoleonidae talk page. T.carnifex (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Now you are sounding as if you are aware that the "moderately well-prepared Wikipedia reader" would search for "Marsupial Lion" without bothering to type in capitals. Fact is "moderately well-prepared Wikipedia" readers will not know the scientific name of the marsupial lion, and when they search for it they expect to go the page for the animal. You are also implying I did not know it's family before I chose to redirect "marsupial lion" correctly to "Marsupial Lion", but I was aware of the family I am simply fixing something that is wrong so it does not confuse the average joe. I am not offended by what you have said and am glad you are being honest as this is the only real way in which we can truly understand each other's points of view, but be aware I am doing this to improve wikipedia and not to damage it. Now with the hatnote finally suggested as a result of the debate, it offers a massive improvement as it will not confuse the "moderately well-prepared Wikipedia reader". But the redirect still needs to be the animal, not the family. "marsupial lions" already redirect to the page "Thylacoleonidae" so I fail to see why it is still an issue, other than that editors are more concerned about "winnning" than "improving". Cazique (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly aware that that the "moderately well-prepared Wikipedia reader" is most likely not going to bother using capitals in a search, but that doesn't mean that naming convention (lower case for family common names, upper case for species common names) has to change. The hat-note isn't a band-aid fix to the problem, but probably the most valid option offered. It maintains consistency with Wikipedia guidelines, and is correct (as far as I know) to scientific convention.
Marsupial Lion, as we know, is the common name for Thylacoleo carnifex. This can be used in the plural for more than one of the species, i.e. One Marsupial Lion, two Marsupial Lions. The family of marsupial lions, Thylacoleonidae, can also be used in the singular, for a single member of the family, i.e. One marsupial lion (whether it's Wakaleo oldfieldi, or another member of the family), or the family of marsupial lions. The former is rare, but is still correct. This shows that case is important.
Indeed, this could be potentially confusing, but it is correct. This is where the hat-note comes in. If the reader is unfamiliar with the taxonomy of the family, or doesn't know the scientific name for the Marsupial Lion and therefore won't follow the link to it further down the page, or ignores the whole first paragraph, which explains "The best known is Thylacoleo carnifex, also called the Marsupial Lion" in the second sentence, the hat-note will provide a quick redirection for the reader. It won't have cost them much time, and will have cost the bugger all on the net downloads. They'll have also learnt something about the animal they were looking for in the process (this is not a bad thing). It wouldn't be all that inconvenient, and remains consistent with other Wikipedia articles. As great as the Marsupial Lion, and its respective family is, it doesn't deserve special treatment.
As for my vote, I will not be removing it, as I am interested in these articles and the animals to which they are related, and I agree that it's a relatively important issue that should be resolved. I haven't cast my vote without due care, and have read the related discussions. I still refuse to get into what's turning into an argument, rather than a spirited discussion/debate, as I'm more interested in the articles content than who gets directed to where. I'm not interested in who wins, I don't think it's something to be won, hence why I'm voting and making my comments concise. I believe what I attached to my vote is sufficient, and is all I'm interested in adding to the discussion. I hope my above comments can convince you that I have put thought into the issue and help you understand my stance on the issue for a consensus to be reached. T.carnifex (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But the redirect to "Marsupial Lion" does not go against naming conventions. For all the people, yourself included, who have used this for a defence it is not valid. Why is it that something similar like this can't be found? It's because there is nothing similar to this. If and I use this with sceptism, Thylacoleonidae was instead called "Marsupial lions" then there would be a defence concerning naming convention. And as you said it is rare to refer to the other species as "marsupial lion" and is more than likely due to them being a member of the family in which the true "marsupial lion" belongs. As I said, it should redirect to "Marsupial Lion", and the hatnote I provided for the two articles be included in the case that viewers meant the actual family, which is highly unlikely. If readers want to take the time to read about the other marsupial lions in the family, then it can be up to them. I don't feel we should force them to it. Like you keep on mentioning, it's only one more click. Cazique (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've read what you just said wrong, it sounds like you don't know what you are on about. You are now doubting if the family is called marsupial lions. Is that correct? Further more, Thylacoleonidae is the actual family of the Marsupial Lion. For any clarification on this matter, see this[2] PhD thesis. This then means the established naming convention has precedence; Capitalisation for the common names of species, and lower case for family common names, such as dogs or dog, and cats or cat. We aren't forcing them to the family page just because we feel like it, but because Thylacoleonidae are commonly called the marsupial lions, and it doesn't matter how rarely the singular is used, it still can be, as Lonley Marble showed. You refuted this by saying "But they only said that because the plural wouldn't make sense." Funny old language is the English one. Still demonstrates that lower case, and non-plural, marsupial lion can refer to the family of Thylacoleonidae. Just because people are sometimes mistaken doesn't mean we should change it to accommodate them. It's an extremely small inconvenience, but it is one which is correct. And as I pointed out, most people probably wouldn't be concerned about the small inconvenience, as they would have been searching for the Marsupial Lion to learn something about it, so by going to the family page, before they expend one more click to go to their intended destination, they've learnt of the existence of a whole family of marsupial lions. T.carnifex (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No it is not correct! You quite obviously read it wrong and I don't think this was an accident either! I never argued this fact so all you have just said has no merit, but you don't care do you? What exactly are you arguing here? Why are you side stepping what I have just said? All of what you have just said is pointless and a waste of your time. You do not need to tell me something I am already aware of and not debating. Do you want me to repeat my comment? Or will you now address and refute the points I made instead of making out like I said something else and then trying to make out like I'm ignorant or uneducated on the subject. You not answering my points made, highlights the reverse. Cazique (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This was not intentional, I assure you. I made it clear at the start I have no intentions in offending you. In fact, I had no intentions in arguing, and that's what this seems to be more than anything else. I was mistaken in what you meant. By saying "If and I use this with sceptism, Thylacoleonidae was instead called "Marsupial lions"", I thought you meant you were sceptical of the fact that members of Thylacoleonidae are commonly known as marsupial lions. Would I be correct in assuming you had meant that if the scientific name for Thylacoleonidae was instead "Marsupial lions"? That indeed does make some of what I said null.
I still don't see much problem with how things were before this all began. Marsupial Lion and marsupial lions were accepted common names for the species T. carnifex and its respective family. In either case, adding or removing the 's' changes little of the words meaning. However, lion being capitalised changes the meaning. Just because people may be mistaken in what their search actually refers too doesn't mean the common names change, or naming conventions.
I didn't intend to get this involved. I thought my opinions were clear, and my vote valid. That being said, I'm not going to address your points any further for three reasons: 1) I'm tired, it's half past two in the am here! 2) I'm simply not interested in doing so. You might think this makes me look like an idiot, but I'm just not into getting into drawn out battle over crap. Hence the concise comments in my vote. 3) I'm going away for the next day or so and making the best of what's left of the long weekend and won't be able to access a computer. Surely this can't drag on much past then. This is also the reason that in a few minutes time, I'll be heading over to the Thylacoleoindae talk page and seconding UtherSRG's motion for consensus. T.carnifex (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi T. Cazique is clearly a troll and a bully (just have a look at the sprays it left on the talk page's of anyone who voted differently from what it wanted). I recommend not engaging it. If its unacceptable behaviour continues, I will report it. Secret Squïrrel, approx 04:35, 9 June 2008 (Earth Standard Time)
Unless I've read what you just said wrong, it sounds like you don't know what you are on about. You have chosen not to engage in discussion because you cannot effectively refute what I have said and you know you are wrong. Oh well, if you do not want to refute my points then it makes your opinion invalid. Long weekend is over now, and what a pity I chose to enjoy it and then came back to all these discussions made out of ignorance. Cazique (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one way to invoke a response, childishly mimicking me. I know I should bite my tongue, but for crying out loud, look at Miss Gillespie's thesis. May I draw you attention to table 3.1 on page twelve, and chapter 3.8. Don't argue, just read it. Other users watching this page may also like to do the same, to see what I mean. T.carnifex (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And Cazique, the M and the L are capitalised in table 3.1 because it's a title, don't bother clutching at straws on this one. If you bother to read it, you'll see. T.carnifex (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I also forgot to ask, don't you have the burden of proof? You're the one who wants the change, how about you show the evidence to why we should have it your way, other than your personal opinion. T.carnifex (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"But the redirect to "Marsupial Lion" does not go against naming conventions. For all the people, yourself included, who have used this for a defence it is not valid. Why is it that something similar like this can't be found? It's because there is nothing similar to this. If and I use this with sceptism, Thylacoleonidae was instead called "Marsupial lions" then there would be a defence concerning naming convention. And as you said it is rare to refer to the other species as "marsupial lion" and is more than likely due to them being a member of the family in which the true "marsupial lion" belongs. As I said, it should redirect to "Marsupial Lion", and the hatnote I provided for the two articles be included in the case that viewers meant the actual family, which is highly unlikely. If readers want to take the time to read about the other marsupial lions in the family, then it can be up to them. I don't feel we should force them to it. Like you keep on mentioning, it's only one more click. Cazique (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)"

Again do not confuse the issue! Do not play games! Cazique (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the defense for naming conventions has been well defended by Uther. I hope you're reading her thesis between these busy edits... T.carnifex (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please read....

talk:Marsupial Lion. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. T.carnifex (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing comments

Sorry for any delay...I'm on a mostly-wikibreak right now until next week.

Regarding editing others' user pages:

  • Don't edit the user page without a VERY good reason. However, you may post a new topic or respond on their talk page at will.
  • Refactoring the comments of others violates wikipolicies, unless (a) you're reverting vandalism, or (b) it's your own talk page. If you remove someone's comments (other than your own) from a user talk page (other than your own), you can expect sufficient warnings before being blocked for repeated abuse.
  • You may remove others' comments from your own user talk page, but unless you are archiving, this is generally considered rude. Speedy archiving (24 hours old) is also considered rude. A more appropriate archive age is five or more days old.

Hope this clears up your concerns. Happy reporting, Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)