Talk:Rolling and wheels in the natural world

Comment

If metazoan animals and also plants do not ever evolve wheels, then it it irrelevant that wheels can't do everything. Of course they can't and no more needs to be said. The earlier sections are good, but not yet simple enough. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As the many academic citations in that section attest, the questions of efficiency, traction, and obstacle avoidance have been major points of academic discussion when it comes to animal locomotion with wheels. Even if you fully accept the argument of the preceding section (that wheels can't evolve), a proper article cannot ignore the second major area of discussion on the topic. For some academics, the evolutionary and developmental arguments may not be convincing, but the biomechanical ones may be. Swpb (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Over-generalising

"Some kinds of animals form their bodies into a circle so they can roll." Sometimes the function is to move but more often it is a defence mechanism. The pangolin, for example, is famous for its hard-to-get-at ball which it has been filmed using to deter predators. Although we can't test it, very likely trilobite rolling-up was defensive. It is not persuasive as a way to move under water. Tumbleweed, yes, that is convincing. Dung beetles do roll dung all right, but it's the dung that is going around. In general, anything which isn't supported by a reliable source may be cut out of the article by other editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point - I changed it to reflect that rolling up may be defensive. Swpb (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sticking to the topic

I removed the section on fictional creatures because this article is about the natural world, not fiction. I also think the sections Mac took out should be removed: they are general information about rolling and the wheel: that is off-topic, and those sections are too long to fit here. That info could be put in other articles and referred to here, though.

Be careful not to violate WP:OWN when you work on this article. You have to let others work on it, too, and not every change needs discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Every change as big as removing ten thousand characters merits discussion. Before you start throwing OWN around, maybe give the primary contributor to the article a chance to explain their reasoning before you erase big chunks of valid content. Swpb (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not if it was necessary.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but unless that text is blatant junk or copyright violation, yes, you do need to discuss first. Maybe not by a hard and fast rule, but certainly by any sense of civility. I put a great deal of thought into the construction of this article, including what to include and what not to. I can make intelligent arguments for each section, if given a chance. As for fiction section, I can certainly see an argument for splitting it to its own article. But the way this has been handled makes me wary of contributing to this project at all. Swpb (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me like you think you own this page. You can't just stop users contributing because you don't agree with them.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a complete mischaracterization of what I've done. I have only asked for discussion before large sections of the article are removed. I love it when other editors improve my work. It's just that two of the major changes so far have not been improvements, and deserved, at the very least, some comment on here. That is absolutely reasonable. If you don't think so, maybe it's you, not me, who should step away from a collaborative project. Swpb (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you telling me what I can and cannot do. I have as much right to edit this project as you!--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Just be decent about how you do it. I'd love it if you could help me with the complexity, since I know that concerned you. Swpb (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
My edit was also reverted or changed back by you. This means three things: you are engaged in an edit war and have broken the 3 revert rule WP:3RR for today. However, I can't be bothered to report it and notify all parties involved. Secondly, at least a sentence at the end of that paragraph in the lead will need to go if the "fiction and legends" part of the article does not remain there. Thirdly, my edits here have been shown to improve work, so I perceive that you do not invite good changes to what you see as your article. Fylbecatulous talk 19:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits to lead & rem source citation

When I patrolled (reviewed) the page I removed an unnecessary source citation copied from enwiki. I also removed the third paragraph in the lead as it read like a personal essay. Also, see: Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia, particularly the issue of attribution. Because you were an editor on the original enwiki article Rotating locomotion in living systems does not alleviate the requirement for attribution. There were other editors who contributed as well. With these minor changes I marked the article patrolled. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)