This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big-eared flying fox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Exclude the parenthetical insertion, which can and does happen when read or parsed, and the first line reads:
The premise "big-eared flying fox is a species of bat" is invalid, the 'consensus' at the english wikipedia that says otherwise has been rigorously applied in often semi-automated edits. That doesn't change what is obviously a licensed premise, that any common name is the species name. I find this very awkward to word correctly in a lead, an unnecessary handicap to discussing the concepts involved. Repeating what was certainly invented vernacular to supply another name for the current taxonomic concept goes against the grain for me, based on core policies strongly supported by consensus and defying the evident will to suppress the actual name when those few decided this was how it was going to be. cygnis insignis 10:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big-eared flying fox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Exclude the parenthetical insertion, which can and does happen when read or parsed, and the first line reads:
The premise "big-eared flying fox is a species of bat" is invalid, the 'consensus' at the english wikipedia that says otherwise has been rigorously applied in often semi-automated edits. That doesn't change what is obviously a licensed premise, that any common name is the species name. I find this very awkward to word correctly in a lead, an unnecessary handicap to discussing the concepts involved. Repeating what was certainly invented vernacular to supply another name for the current taxonomic concept goes against the grain for me, based on core policies strongly supported by consensus and defying the evident will to suppress the actual name when those few decided this was how it was going to be. cygnis insignis 10:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)