Talk:Deinogalerix

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Use of free image

The free image doesn't appear to be against the original research policy, so I have reintroduced it. Addhoc 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image degrades the quality of the article, so I have removed it. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why trying to provide an idea of what this animal may have looked like when alive degrades the article beyond only you saying it does.--Mr Fink 01:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Including the views of SilkTork on your talk page, there is a clear consensus to include the image. Addhoc 11:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and Wiki policy: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images which says: "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spineless

I'm sure I know what's meant here, but only because I know hedgehogs have 'em, and I find this ambiguous wording confusing (was it an invertebrate? a coward?). How about "lacking quills/ spines/ (other appropriate terminology)"? I'm going to change it to the 1st option, but won't be offended if someone smarter improves it. sNkrSnee | t.p. 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "quill-less"?--Mr Fink 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that option, but I have to admit that I find it an awkward word to pronounce, even if only in my head. So for that reason I went with "lacking quills", and still prefer it. Frankly, I'm not 100% certain "quill-less" is really a word. However, I'm a newcomer to this page, and you're the art-drawing guy, so I won't revert. sNkrSnee | t.p. 23:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon immediate reflection (curse my hair-trigger mouse-finger), I contemplated that I have often heard the phrase "lacking skills", but never "skill-less", perhaps for either or both of my reasons above? Ducks lack bills (not really) but aren't "bill-less", people die without wills but aren't "will-less" &etc... I leave it to you. sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On third thought, we'll go with your version: sounds better after all.--Mr Fink 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're much more amicable than your handle implies! sNkrSnee | t.p. 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to interpret it as the German word for "finch," actually.--Mr Fink 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I, rest assured! Have you ever seen a surlier bird? (Please note that the foregoing constitutes a lame attempt to deflect attention from my embarrassing ignorance of birds and German, among other things. I completely disavow all forms of finch chauvinism). sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very cranky... I was going to say "Vampire Finch", but it tends to be more sadistic than surly.--Mr Fink 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gory and enlightening, thank you, I feel less guilty about eating poultry now. Given how popular bloodletting was, I'm surprised no one fancied them as helpful little bird doctors. Instead of calling them Darwin's Finches they'd be, I don't know, Florence Nightingales? sNkrSnee | t.p. 06:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deinogalerix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060302164548/http://www.angellis.net/Web/DFG-mam/Deinogalerix.htm to http://www.angellis.net/Web/DFG-mam/Deinogalerix.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]