Wikipedia talk:WikiFauna: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:49, 2 September 2016

Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance

	This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Bottom	This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Wikipig redirect to Wikigiant

Why does Wikipig redirect to Wikigiant? Usws (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone didn't like that one.[1]. See Wikipedia talk:WikiGiant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New species

Can't there be a wiki chicken? I mean come on wiki pig, wiki cat, what about those who want make a post but are scared that their info is wrong or that something might happen if they try to edit? Cause that is totally me. Jun Hao Wu 07:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This page is biased. It is all about WikiFauna, while there is no existing page about WikiFlora! What about the Wikipedian plant life? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 03:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culling spurious or facetious fauna

I think there needs to be some inclusion criteria for WikiFauna. Characterizing editing styes has some educational and reflective merit, but spurious or facetious fauna detract from the study. I suggest that for a WikiFauna to be valid, there needs to be at least one example user. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiBishop#Wikipedia:WikiBishop for an example of reaction against the excessive spurious or facetious fauna. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce for the Goose?

I think it would be only fair that if someone suggests a MfD on one species of WikiFauna, that they apply the same standards and MfD all WikiFauna ... but then I am biased, I suppose, as someone has just suggested that WikiWolfcub should be deleted, saying it is basically the same as WikiPuppy - when in fact the whole point of it is that it is not the same as WikiPuppy! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria for WikiFauna

When a WikiFauna exists or is newly created below a certain standard, that casts a cloud on the remaining WikiFauna. A problem with WikiFauna was that it lacked an inclusion criteria. When these come up for deletion at MfD, the issues are unclear and the discussion is scattered. I went through:

and develop and posted an inclusion criteria. Feel free to revise it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about dropping a note to the original editor with suggestions for improving the WikiFauna to bring it 'up to standard' and make it 'meaningful' rather than just suggesting it be removed? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the page has some guidelines, that should stem the recent flow of WikiFauna MfDs (which was my motivation for starting[2] the project guideline). Also, just after my first post to the page, I realized that I left out a suggestion to improve rather than delete and added this post having "may be improved". Initially, I thought this whole fauna thing was a dumb idea,[3] but on looking into it, my fuddy-duddy side thawed and I've come to realize that it is a very valuable tool to improve the encyclopedia, particular for the younger and free spirited Wikipedians. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just read this! Uzma Gamal, have a hug :o) I'm delighted your fuddy-duddy side has thawed, and I'm even more delighted (tickled pink!) that I apparently come into the category of "younger and free-spirited Wikipedians" ..... bearing in mind that in Real Life I actually have five grandchildren .... :D Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cute but...

This is a great idea, I think it can be improved a bit to make it even greater! This series of essays are cute, but they may be quite inaccurate, due to the reason that the characters are post-rationalised based on the label, whereas first one looks at the traits and classifies them, then adds a label which best suits. As a result many people probably think "what am I? Am I a dryad or a doppleganger?" (D&D joke, sorry). There is a lot of work in Belbin Team Inventory, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Personality type which may help, e.g. an expert on psychometric tests could give it a look through. Plus I'd be nice if the theme of the labels were mythical races only and not animals. In my opinion, but I am not an expert, there are the following scales:

users dedicate differ amounts of time
the time dedicated is not uniformly distributed (bouts of activity)
time is divided differently in anti-vandalism reversion, small edits, rewrites and new articles
time spent on "home turf" or patrolling around.
inclusionism and delitionism
time is divided differently between hobby/pop-trivia and science/engineering/humanities
view of the policies range from divine commandments to general guidelines which can be ignore for valiant causes (similar to D&D alignemnt chaos, neutral and order, which are independent of good, neutral and evil)
community engagement: seek acknowledgement (new article editing is often unrewarding), delegate or help out

There is also Queen's English or american dialect, but that is not a difference it is just bad grammar by the latter group of speakers. Point 3 and 7 are both enterprising-ness. Some such as 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 can be scored automatically (6 would need category knowledge), but bot-handlers would be misscored by such a script.

If someone could expand/comment on this, I think I would be nice to confer an overall structure as it is now, to me only Gnome seems right. --Squidonius (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a serious analysis of some archetypes (7 in this case) that Wikipedians could be said to fall into, see meta:Research:Editor Lifecycles#Model, particularly the definitions in that section, and the 2 images immediately following.

The other classic schemes are meta:Wiki personality type and meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies.

Regardings MyersBriggs et al, you might be interested in my compilation at User:Quiddity/Human archetype systems. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Which kind of fauna most resembles a human (generally apparently human, anyway) accountant? John Carter (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiGnome?--Wikimedes (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooked species

[The above WikiChicken entry can also be described by this entry:]

From my (incomplete) reading of the WikiFauna section, I've reluctantly concluded that one species has been overlooked. Although this WikiCritter shares characteristics with the "good-intentioned", though "naive and hapless", WikiDodo, it's an even lesser creature, squeaking alone in the WikiWilderness. I refer to the WikiDormouse and to its English cousin, the WikiGryphonDormouse.

WikiDormice (surely, there's more than one!), like it's fuzzy mammalian counterparts, are omnivorous, attracted by a wide-range of tasty WikiArticles, from berries to insects to biographies of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier. However, due to their timidity, they frequently nibble only around the edges, hiding from other WikiCritters that they see as predatory. Although they might summon up the courage to expose themselves long enough to correct a misspelling, delete an errant coma, or suggest a citation source on a Talkpage, they don't want to ruffle the rapture-like feathers of a page's "real" editors thereby drawing their eagle-eyed attention. Sure, the tiny WikiDormouse has read the "Be bold" directive, but has also read plenty of editorial scoldings directed towards those who alter a page without a thorough discussion consensus and so shuns such activity. Its little head reels.

Such WikiWorkings contribute mightily to the tiny creature's profound sense of intellectual unworthiness, spelling insufficiency, and grammatical deficiency. How can the WikiDormouse contribute meaningfully to the Wikipedia effort if it shrinks from predatory criticism and fears that it cannot write a respectable complete sentence worthy of consideration, let alone one that a diagrammer can parse with flourish?

With such intellectual handicaps, they naturally turn to Wikipedia: helperpages for guidance. Alas, there's no refuge found there. Due either to the WikiDormouse's ineptitude at divining a topic's exact listing or to WP's torturous, self-referencingly dense helper pages, if it cannot sniff out an answer in less than 1 hour and 44 minutes of vain searching, it throws up its cutely diminutive paws in utter rodential frustration.

The WikiDormouse is frequently nocturnal in it's habits when "real" editors are sleeping soundly, less likely to surprise the timid creature by suddenly springing from behind a Talkpage post. If such a predatory springage does occur, periods of hibernation by the minuscule rodent are observed.

The WikiDormouse (and the WikiGryphonDormouse) wants to be a helpful, if tiny, team player, but lacks the skills to be effective or even to search out helpful Wikipedia: pages. If a stronger, nurturing, but non-predatory, WikiCritter could adopt a fledgling WikiDormouse, show it the WikiRopes, and how to effectively find information in WP's bloated helperpages, it could grow more independent, like a WikiOtter or at least an evolutionarily halfway example between the WikiDormouse and the WikiOtter, the WikiDotter.

Without such support (in figuring out how the site works and from aggressive editorial tactics), the tiny, glassy-eyed rodent will remain a lone timid voice, squeaking in the wilderness.

Squeakingly yours, Wordreader (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to mention that, in addition to timidity, the WikiDormouse is markedly shy and sensitive? Yes, I did forget! Wordreader (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFauna Addition!

Hey I have a addition to the wikifauna to add! Its called the WikiBorg! I was hoping you guys could make the page so I can get to work on it :D Andrew Wiggin (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about dem WikiCrabs?

Something like: WikiCrabs are similar in behavior to WikiGnomes, but easier to spot as their shell offers protection and they don't need to hide as much. Also, their preference for waslking sideways means they're more likely to contribute to a wide variety of articles, including on [[ Wikipedia#Language_editions|multiple language Wikipedias]] or even other Wikimedia projects.

The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As crabs comfortably move sideways maybe they might have cross referencing functions. Greg Kaye 19:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

What would one call a WikiPlatypus that most closely resembles a WikiPuma? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging/combining the WikiWitch and WikiWizard references

At present the text presents:

===WikiWitch=== The [[Wikipedia:WikiWitch|WikiWitch]], a capricious creature whose devotion to [[Wikipedia|arcane knowledge]] overshadows their every act. Can be mistaken for all sorts of WikiFauna. ===WikiWizard=== A [[Wikipedia:WikiWizard|WikiWizard]] edits in order to keep the universe in order, by fixing small errors, helping with dispute resolutions, and occasionally helping fight vandalism and trolls.

Surely witch and wizard references, with their accompanying gender related images on their individually asigned pages, should otherwise present much the same thing at this stage of navigation. Greg Kaye 19:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of `{{Alleged Humor}}`

Shouldn't the {{Alleged Humor}} template be included at the top of this page since it is clearly a for-fun page? --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 06:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary. Unlike the fauna articles themselves, it's not written from an "in-universe" perspective. Rebb ing 06:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

Has anybody researched the taxonomy of these creatures to establish relational characteristics among them? 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 : I don't think it's necessary. Unlike the fauna articles themselves, it's not written from an "in-universe" perspective. <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Rebbing|<span style="background:#f660ab;color:#60f6f6">Rebb</span>]][[User_talk:Rebbing|<span style="background:#60f6f6;color:#f660ab">ing</span>]]</span> 06:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
+== Taxonomy ==
+Has anybody researched the [[Taxonomy (biology)|taxonomy]] of these creatures to establish relational characteristics among them? [[Special:Contributions/2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05|2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05]] ([[User talk:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05|talk]]) 16:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)