Talk:Snake (animal): Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD No edit summary |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Pat Palmer moved page Talk:Snake to Talk:Snake (animal) without leaving a redirect) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
Beginning to rewrite this article with 2 goals in mind: (1) using language that maintains the interest of the general reader and (2) fitting the subject into biological science. Please join me![[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:58, 29 January 2007 (CST) | Beginning to rewrite this article with 2 goals in mind: (1) using language that maintains the interest of the general reader and (2) fitting the subject into biological science. Please join me![[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:58, 29 January 2007 (CST) | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
I would like to make a case for adopting this as Citizendium style. I think it has the advantage of keeping all the word origin and use stuff, but- especially if it became standard and users would learn that the actual article starts after the triple line- not muddying up the introduction with this stuff. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 10:09, 29 January 2007 (CST) | I would like to make a case for adopting this as Citizendium style. I think it has the advantage of keeping all the word origin and use stuff, but- especially if it became standard and users would learn that the actual article starts after the triple line- not muddying up the introduction with this stuff. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 10:09, 29 January 2007 (CST) | ||
---- | |||
As I am editing this article I am finding a number of direct quotation from sources that are not placed in quotes and are not referenced. Therefore, I am deleting them as I go. No original research does ''not'' mean no original writing ;-) !![[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 10:17, 29 January 2007 (CST) | As I am editing this article I am finding a number of direct quotation from sources that are not placed in quotes and are not referenced. Therefore, I am deleting them as I go. No original research does ''not'' mean no original writing ;-) !![[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 10:17, 29 January 2007 (CST) | ||
== Why is this a redirect? == | |||
This should just be at [[snake]]. John was right to redirect to the only existing article, but it shouldn't be necessary, and even if it were, why snake(''organism'') - highly bookish word in this context - 'reptile' or even 'animal' would be better. | |||
This is one of the clearer-cut cases where the article should just live at the noun. Other meanings of 'snake' are clearly named from their resemblance to the reptile. | |||
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 11:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:15, 8 March 2024
Beginning to rewrite this article with 2 goals in mind: (1) using language that maintains the interest of the general reader and (2) fitting the subject into biological science. Please join me!Nancy Sculerati MD 09:58, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Removed line about "old synonym for snakes". It's perfectly acceptable to call a snake a serpent, this is a current synonym. Nancy Sculerati MD 10:05, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Format: Derivation and use of word/triple line/Body of article
I would like to make a case for adopting this as Citizendium style. I think it has the advantage of keeping all the word origin and use stuff, but- especially if it became standard and users would learn that the actual article starts after the triple line- not muddying up the introduction with this stuff. Nancy Sculerati MD 10:09, 29 January 2007 (CST)
As I am editing this article I am finding a number of direct quotation from sources that are not placed in quotes and are not referenced. Therefore, I am deleting them as I go. No original research does not mean no original writing ;-) !!Nancy Sculerati MD 10:17, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Why is this a redirect?
This should just be at snake. John was right to redirect to the only existing article, but it shouldn't be necessary, and even if it were, why snake(organism) - highly bookish word in this context - 'reptile' or even 'animal' would be better.
This is one of the clearer-cut cases where the article should just live at the noun. Other meanings of 'snake' are clearly named from their resemblance to the reptile.
Aleta Curry 11:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)