WikiFur talk:Species

Apply to common species? only species common in the context of furry? realworld species only? What about breeds such as Corgi? -- Sine 13:54, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Question

To prevent stepping on somebodies shoes (or suggestion), Sine, let me see is I got this correct:

• Move XXXX (species) name to XXXX
• Add {{Species}} tag on newly renamed XXXX page
• Move all articles with XXXX on it to the disambiguation page. As with Wikipedia disambiguation pages, small directed blurb about XXXX on top, followed with names containing XXXX in it(*)(**)
• Change [[XXXX (species)|XXXX]] in articles with it to [[XXXX]]

(*) Not all XXXX animals/characters/fursonas (e.g. No Sheila Vixen on Fox (disambiguation) [no Fox in name], as suggested by Colleagues) (**) Still missing the point of the removal of Coyote related names in Coyote (disambiguation), as per keeping with Wikipedia format, and discussed about in Talk:Fox.

Spirou 20:05, 24 January 2013 (EST)

I'm not sure that implementing the plan should be done as yet: Proposed policy should be discussed and I queried above on this talk page about what articles would be under this. My understanding: planning to move Name (species) to Name and leave a redirect; there being [[Name (species)|Name]] links can be ignored or changed through an automatic replace function. In terms of what is on a disambiguation page, "names containing XXXX in it" is far too broad, as GreenReaper clearly expressed in at least two places at Talk:Fox. WikiFur is not Wikipedia. I'm not finding "keeping with Wikipedia format" a helpful point of reference. -- Sine 01:47, 25 January 2013 (EST)

Coyote (disambiguation) seems pretty good as it is. The key is that disambiguation is not about whether a topic is "related", or even whether it has the word in its title, but whether the reader might reasonably have expected to find the topic under the title "Coyote" - or, conversely, whether it would be reasonable to link to "Coyote" when you meant to link to the topic. In other words, there must be a reasonable level of ambiguity. People who are clearly known to others just as "Coyote" count, but people whose characters merely are coyotes would not, even if Coyote was part of their name (e.g. Quentin Coyote); that is what Category:Coyote characters is for. The goal of disambiguation is "oh, you went here, but you actually meant to go here", not to replace search or categories. --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2013 (EST)

Coyote (disambiguation) as most recently edited by Spirou shows subheadings. I don't see any need for those on our disambiguation pages here on WikiFur, for the sake of shortness and simplicity. There may be the odd exception (I suspect Fox (disambiguation) will have some length to it). -- Sine 02:08, 25 January 2013 (EST)

In short, all thought we strive to use the tools of Wikipedia (info boxes, layouts, formats), and put forth the intention of using them to improve our existing pages with them, as a wrote/suggested in a open discussion back a few months back with no contrary rebuttals, now we are not.

Okay. Will revert the edits to the three articles I added the Wikipedia formatting, as suggested that it needs further discussion, and so they conform to the rest of the disambiguations pages as they presently stand right now.

It would have been proper to present these counter-arguments when the possible future implementation of them were laid out - Spirou 02:25, 25 January 2013 (EST)

I mildy oppose (the proposed policy of moving species article so they no longer have (species) in article name). I think a fairly large number of edits are made by those apparently new to wiki who link to disambiguation pages possibly because they don't realize the article they are intending to link to should have () round brackets in link. I think if "(species)" are removed from species article names that there are enough furries who use a species name as an alias that newbies will link to a species page when assuming they were linking to page about a specific person. --EarthFurst 21:11, 19 January 2013 (EST) + additional wording on 31 March 2013

An example of someone linking to bracket-less article, but the intended topic isn't a species: Fandom's Favorite Fursuit Fracas 2010 has a fursuit apparently named "Panda" that links to bracket-less Panda. Hoping to figure out which fursuiter it is soon. --EarthFurst 17:17, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

At a guess, PandaGuy. --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

{{Species}}

Sorry if I seemed to have overstepped over your edit. I thought we were about to move with the start/final formatting of (disambiguation) pages. Will steer clear of the intended edits - Spirou 02:41, 25 January 2013 (EST)

Template

Looks like Template:Redirect would serve for the text at the top of articles. -- Sine 14:10, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

More cases of species article names

More cases of species article names: Honey Badger, Sloth. -- Sine 13:54, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

Further discussion?

-- Sine 14:09, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

I would say yes for the best known species/more furry common ones (i.e Lion, Wolf, Skunk, etc). For the less know/used ones (Honey Badger), or "rares" Corgi?: I'm open to other colleagues/editors suggestions on these ones

Maybe a template to indicate a wish convert certain [[XXXX (species)|XXXX]] articles to [[XXXX]]?. A proposal page (akin to the Category:People/People to add page), where species may be listed for consideration? ([[XXXX (species)|XXXX]], [[XXXX]], or stricken out of consideration) - Spirou 04:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Uncommon feline species

In these three cases the disambiguation has one topic besides the species, a person name: Jaguarundi, Ocelot, and Serval. Jaguarundi has only one article in the Species character category. The other two species have 11. -- Sine 14:56, 25 November 2013 (EST)

Similar case for these three non-feline species: Hamster, Polecat, and Squirrel. -- Sine 15:11, 25 November 2013 (EST)