The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
This is not the page to discuss whether a source in an article is reliable. If you want to do that, go to WP:RSN or the talk page of the article in question.
Agreed, except to say the image in question isn't even decorative! The second image does have that quality in addition to being an appropriate illustration for the article. I say dump the Klee-Irwin.gif (or move it elsewhere in the article if it has some redeeming quality that escapes me) and let the South American coati/Brazilian aardvark lead. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have either of you actually read it? It doesn't seem so. It is a very extreme example of the removal of damaging facts, replacing them with PR fluff. I will return it; you didn't even put the coati at the top. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An image is supposed to illustrate, not to be read. We might as well replace articles by screenshots of them. And even if we really want an image instead of text pointing out some of the interesting changes, we could at least take a more recent diff, where you actually see easily the changes and you don't have to fish through four paragraphs of text to see the point. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The coati is not appropriare title picture. Its a super example but is not a good cover. Imagine with other articles: for example climate change. The cover could be earth or weather, but not one particular insect species going extinct.
removing facts from a article that was edited with evidence. Wiki does not like certain facts in their articles . That would be suppression of information. Wiki has became a joke and not a reliable source for information 216.252.7.115 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it a reliable source? Was it related to the article? Did it add anything useful to article? If it was removed, it's probably because the answer to one of those questions was no. Not every little thing needs to be kept. If it doesn't add to the article or isn't from a credible source, it will be removed. The First Spinjitzu Master (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the WP:SUSTAINED test. The Jar'Edo Wens article got some news coverage in 2015 but has not been referenced by any sources after its deletion. Doesn't seem to have had any long-term notability after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually disagree. I've seen coverage of this in surprising places, from the Computer History Museum I recently visited in San Francisco (Which has a whole display on it, and I had never heard of it before a few weeks ago when I saw it), to international publications like the italian GeoPop to scholarly pubs: 2018202020212023. Just because this doesn't have as much traction in super online news sources or "ngram" publications doesn't mean it doesn't have longevity. It's just diffuse. Definitely has longevity as a notable Wikipedia hoax. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
