Talk:Northern marsupial mole

Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Australia: Northern Territory / Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Northern marsupial mole is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

edit

@Elmidae:, [1] do you have a query or objection to the move? Why have you removed the bold? because it says that somewhere is not what I'm hoping to understand, although that may be the reason, why are you elevating one name and suppressing another? cygnis insignis 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re bolding, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Lead_section: bold common name (with definite article and downcased), followed by non-bold italic scientific name in brackets - just as we do for just about every organism where the title is the common name. Re moving, my impression is that the previous name is the more widely-used one, so "kakarratul" should be the redirect rather than the article title; but that's not a big deal and I'm not too bothered.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I asked, although I was less than clear: "because it says that somewhere is not what I'm hoping to understand", because I am aware of that page's strange instruction and when tested found any consensus wanting. I am curious why anyone would think it a good idea, no answer is forthcoming. Anyway, why do you have the impression it is widely used, I doubt many have heard of the animal outside of where it lives; should I interpret your edit as merely a passing comment on my contribution to the page? cygnis insignis 18:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here: Not what I asked, although I was less than clear: "because it says that somewhere is not what I'm hoping to understand", because I am aware of that page's strange instruction and when tested found any consensus wanting. I am curious why anyone would think it a good idea, no answer is forthcoming. What bit of my edit does that refer to - formatting the lede according to MOS, or my comment on common usage?

If the former: There's a clear guideline, and it is being used. Grab any number of random examples from a related category (e.g. Category:Mammals_described_in_1920) and you will see they all have that same format. So I don't see the need for argument there?

If the latter: as I don't think the issue is important enough to start reverting, do feel free to consider it just a comment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what I said in your reply seems especially redundant. No need to be sorry, you already suggested you were quite dispassionate in proffering opinionated remarks on something that doesn't bother you, so there can be no foul: you like the other name for some unstated reason. I may never know why users slavishly adhere to something no particularly agrees with, there was no consensus to disembolden the most important redirect. cygnis insignis 22:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Err... whatever. I don't understand why you appear to feel personally affronted by an edit that implements an uncontroversial, universally accepted guideline, and I'm beginning to be ticked off by the combative attitude. Let's just stop this here please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I am not the only one on the receiving end of this diatribe. Cygnis insignis, I really wish you'd stop being so confrontational about this. It's really offensive and rude that you refer to other editors as "slavishly" adhering to policy. I was willing to overlook your personal attacks directed at me (and my "persnickety manner") and move on with my quiet toilings around here, but seeing this cycle replay is irksome. Enwebb (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd. I did want to let this go (and go to bed), but Cygnis insignis appears to insist on doubling down. Okay; I'm sure we can live with the odd article that looks as if no-one had cleaned it up yet. Not sure we can, in the long run, live with someone with this level of immaturity and/or ownership issues. The Ghost bat conversation linked above makes for distressing reading. I had hoped that the Tree of Life crowd was generally free of this type of behaviour. Anyway, disengaging but taking notes. Please don't push this over the AN/I line, Cygnis insignis. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name use

Clarification as requested: I'm getting 4.5k hits for "northern marsupial mole" and 2.1k hits for "kakarratul", which seems to indicate that the former sees twice the use of the latter, and hence should be the article name. I'll also reiterate that I'm not too bothered either way, and that if this is supposed to turn into a mud-fight, it can do so without my further participation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]