Talk:Rwindi
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Punetor i Rregullt5. Lions have absolutely nothing to do with this article. What you are trying to force in is about equivalent to starting a stub about a random town in England and then adding "As this town is in England, there were Irish elk here during the last pre-glacial", then slapping on an image of an elk skeleton. Articles are not hooks for you to hang your personal obsessions on (see WP:COATRACK); nor is there any room for your personal interpretations of whether or not lions were present or not (see WP:SYNTH). If there are reliable secondary sources that in depth treat with the presence and identity of lions near this place, in a way that demonstrates that this is actually relevant to the topic, then that's stuff you can use. What you are currently doing is undue and disruptive. Cut it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Elmidae, I'm just speaking about the Wildlife of Rwindi, and as there are include lions, I have shown a little info and a picture of a lion, because if I create a separated article about this town's wildlife, it will be a stubby one. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- First, STOP ramming this stuff back in before the discussion has come to a conclusion. And read WP:BRD while you are at it - it tells you exactly why you are supposed to do that.
- Second, you don't have a source that talks about the wildlife of Rwindi, and even if you had, that content would be completely WP:UNDUE at this point of article development. Don't you even understand that an article is supposed to summarize the importance facts about a topic? For a populated place these are demographics, history, traffic, etc. etc. - far down the lane you get to wildlife. And even then that would only be aposite if there is something special about the place, e.g. the only town within a wide radius to ever feature lions. Which it manifestly isn't.
- Rule of thumb: if you could put a bit of information into every single article of its type, then that information is not worth including. Your factoid about lions possibly-maybe-perhaps having been present could go into every single town stub in the Congo, hence it belongs in none of them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Third: unless the content is (demonstrably, relevantly, sourced) different from Wildlife of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no reason nor a good justification to talk about this place's wildlife at all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)