From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Why would we use scienceblogs as a source, when it is a blog site. What you site to the blog is already cited to other sources, so there is no need to use the blog.Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's somewhere between WP:SPS and WP:NEWSBLOG (no clear editorial oversight, but not a personal website). But a blog is not inherently unreliable. It's context-dependent. WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". I don't think this is an issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It feels like citation overkill. The blog is only used for a single sentence that is already sourced elsewhere(unless my eyes have failed me). It's not something super important that needs plenty of citations so I feel we could get rid of the blog source and nothing would be lost to the article. If we don't need the blog source why have it?Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harald Stümpke's account / Background[edit]

My primary issue with the statement is that it is puffery we would attribute to an author, not in the voice of Wikipedia. It also isn't needed there, as it interrupts the flow of describing the account. A statement like that, properly attributed would be better served under legacy section. Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have any sources saying he was a respected and accomplished zoologist? We only cited his University's website and so it is synth to put that there. Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Respected" should have good source, and it may not be easy to find one (I´m fairly certain he was respected though). I think that "accomplished" is reasonable because of his professorships, and should stay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I combined the two sections above since they touch on the same subject, more or less. These are not unreasonable comments. As I recall, the descriptions were pulled directly from sources. I'll try to look for them later, but I have no problem with removing "respected". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine then. Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular Culture[edit]

Do we have any other examples? Because saying it influenced several and then only naming one is poor form. Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Merzbow album was just the only notable example (in the sense of having a wikipedia article). There are other ones that there are citations for, but I try to avoid non-notable examples of "in popular culture" stuff. I can look for others, but assuming it's just Merzbow, what wording would you recommend? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure. Just stating it like the butterfly fact without qualification might be awkward, but it would be better than what's currently there if there is only one example. Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, Isthisreallifeorabaddream, out of curiosity, how did you come upon this article? I'm content to assume good faith, but it's unusual to see a new account created moments after a good article review in order to send it to GAR/take issue with the review (i.e. the bot hadn't even updated the page yet -- it's just the talk/review pages that were updated). And, of course, it's unusual for a brand new user to know about things like GAR and terms like "synth". I don't plan on starting an SPI or anything, but if it's the same person who was criticizing another of Sagecandor's GA reviews shortly before this, please just use your main account. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry I'm just a lurker. Only reason I made account was to initiate a possible GA reassessment but then I thought about it and realized it is good just need to fix these mistakes. I'd probably be just using my IP if I hadn't made the account. I understand the general fear though. But after this the account will probably sink. Isthisreallifeorabaddream (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have a copyrightproblem?[edit]

In the EL:s and possibly the genera-section, though that bit looks a bit to detailed to me, copyright-problem or no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point re: the link. I remember considering removing it a long time ago and don't remember why I didn't. Gone now. I don't think the list of genera is an issue. It's a remnant of the article when I first came across it. With sources cited, it didn't seem harmful. Descriptions of them are what largely make up the book (i.e. I think there's detail about all of them). The only place they're presented as a group like this, as far as I can see, is in a key to a diagram, but while the names themselves are his creations, there is no creativity to their arrangement or presentation there so as long as it's cited, it seems reasonable to include (i.e. they're major topics in the book, and that they also happened to be listed together in one place doesn't mean we shouldn't list them together). I don't know if I'm explaining that clearly... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, they do no harm. And how else would we learn about the Tyrannonasus?. I suspect R'lyeh was close to this island. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I hearby declare Great Cthulhu [1] a Rhinogradentia. It´s obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the archipelago[edit]

why is there no information on the pacific islands they are meant to be from? are the islands made up too? if so it should be clearly stated in the article that the islands are also fictitious. (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The islands are entirely fictitious. Their names were cleverly invented: their meaning in Bavarian/Austrian dialect becomes clear only when pronounced in English which was a challenge for German-language readers at the time. I guess the names are omitted here because they would mean nothing to English readers.
IP (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article says Rhinogradentia, their island home of Hy-yi-yi, zoologist Harald Stümpke, and a host of other people, places, and documents are fictional creations of Gerolf SteinerRhododendrites talk \\ 16:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]