From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[change source]

This page needs to be left alone for the time being. Firstly, it was improper to change the referencing system. It was originally in-line referencing, and was changed to the Harvard system. Guidelines are that both systems are valid, and an existing system should not be changed. Same deal as with spelling. Furthermore, it is not useful to have huge lists of books. Most readers can't use the lists in any practical way, and having long reading lists is not part of our style.

Much of the content added was not needed. We have a system where content is spread over a hierarchy of pages. It should not all be crammed into a general page. Details can go into more specific pages, and this system must be adhered to.

Now I have to comment that another user took the page from 4,500 KB to 73,000 KB in just a few days, with content which was in unacceptably poor shape. This kind of obsessive behaviour is very destructive to our wiki. As can be seen from the present 35,000 KB, I was modest in what I reverted.

I think some people need to step back. Enough is enough. The page is in reasonable shape, and there is plenty to do on the wiki without being disruptive.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would have been better to come to the talk page in the first place before making drastic changes like you did. But you done nothing wrong there. My concern is that now the article is complex, you've added sentences that belong on enWP. I rather have a large near-simple article than a moderate complex article. I asked if you wanted to work on it together since you showed interest, this does not mean we are working on it towards VGA status - though that's my plan and it does not need to be yours'. I liked the harvard style and it was like that until you changed it. My main concern is complexity the article is in now, I did not revert your edits rather added sources that you did not add and added several more important sentences you've deemed 'unimportant'. Best, Jonatalk to me 10:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It was you who took the page from 4,500 KB to 73,000 KB in just a few days, without discussion.
As to difficulty: this is science. It is necessary for these top pages to have real scientific content, or they are worthless. The need for simplicity has to be balanced with the need for meaningful content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Intro[change source]

The last section of the intro is problematic. There are three different ideas:

  1. Mentioning biggest/smallest known amphibian
  2. Amphibians are kept as pets, or are used for food.
  3. Some amphibians are threatened (habitat loss, diseases, climate change), and some people want to save them.

I don't know how to best re-arrange these, I just wanted to point out the problem. The main problem is that the "kept as pets,food-source" sentence in the middle interrupts text flow. The ideal solution would be to have a paragraph on threat/habitat loss/conservation and use as pets/food source. --Eptalon (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I had removed the first point in my revision but according to Mac his edits are more 'better' than mines nothing I can do about it. Best, Jonatalk to me 10:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I have adjusted the intro, which still had too much stuff. I put some material into the body of the page, and rewrote some of the existing prose. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes definitely reads better now. Another issue I am not sure about is that some Amphibians do not fully transform from tadpole to adult (eg the Axolotl), others, such as the en:Alpine Salamander bear live young, and do not lay eggs. I am not sure if such cases (exceptions?) warrant that we modify our intro to say that most of them lay eggs, have a larval stage, transform, etc. --Eptalon (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a brief mention under the sub-section Development. The thing is, there are always exceptions in biology. The need for these top-of-the-tree articles is to say what is characteristically true of the group. Lower-level articles can concentrate on genera and species. The limitations on downloading and reading puts limits to the details in higher order pages. Just how far to go with details is a matter for judgement. There's something to do with the small size of the eggs which connects with the staged development. I need time away from pressure to think this through. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)