Talk:Bitis parviocula: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Jaap Winius
imported>Howard Arvi Hughes
m (Checklist)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
|                abc = Bitis parviocula
|                cat1 = Biology
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 4
|        underlinked = n
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = - [[User:Rilson Versuri|Versuri]] 14:33, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
}}
==My formatting (now all reverted)==
==My formatting (now all reverted)==
My problems were:
My problems were:

Revision as of 13:33, 30 March 2007


Article Checklist for "Bitis parviocula"
Workgroup category or categories Biology Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status External article: from another source, with little change
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by - Versuri 14:33, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





My formatting (now all reverted)

My problems were:

  1. To place a "common names" line before the article rather than in the article looks very odd.
  2. To use abbreviations rather than full names of unites is less clear for potential users (as is omitting a link to the relevant article).
  3. To leave in Wikipedia templates that simply show up as red "template" signs is surely undesirable.
  4. Why have something in "see also" which is already in the article? --Peter J. King 09:50, 13 February 2007 (CST)


See my answer on your talk page. --Jaap Winius 12:21, 13 February 2007 (CST)