This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ant - if you don't care to justify your position that salamanders are "legendary creatures" and not real animals in the discussion pages, please do not insert that bias into the article. If you can't be bothered to argue your position in discussion when it's challenged, you shouldn't be altering the content in order to make it.
The splitting of salamander in my opinion is a POV fork. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Main article: Wikipedia:Content forking
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. Tarchon 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I finally just took out the part about people confusing dragons and salamanders. I tried to clean it up conceptually to defend it, but issue was taken with the lack of source (even if it's pretty obvious). The key problem is that dragons were not commonly associated with fire until comparatively recent times, but I don't really have time to search through stacks of dragon books and find some author who happens to explicitly write about this obvious idea, that two lizard-like things associated with fire are occasionally confused and co-influential. If anyone wants to look, feel free to put it back in. Tarchon 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems disingenuous to include this illustration and then explain at length that it most likely doesn't depict a salamander. It was carried over from the ==Mythology== section of the original Salamander article. If it isn't actually a salamander why include it? If it is kept, then it's probably best to move it (and the discussion) further down the article, rather than include it in the opening paragraph. Just a thought. -- Ant 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Arms-dudley-mbc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This article was created by User:Tarchon under Salamander (legendary creature), then moved (without any discussions) by User:Srnec to Salamanders in folklore and legend and finally by User:Bloodofox to Salamanders in folklore. Following the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary salamander in popular culture, I've renamed it to Cultural depictions of salamanders to broaden the scope (that was unnecessarily narrowed following the moves). Ping AfD participants who commented on the move (for which I believe there is a consensus for): User:Flatscan, User:Daranios, User:Zxcvbnm. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted the removal of this content as, contrary to the IP editor's claim, it was sourced. There may be better sources for the content, and/or sources that debunk the folk etymology but if so those sources (and related content) belong in the article alongside the existing content. If this is the wrong location for the content then it should be moved to the place it is appropriate. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ant - if you don't care to justify your position that salamanders are "legendary creatures" and not real animals in the discussion pages, please do not insert that bias into the article. If you can't be bothered to argue your position in discussion when it's challenged, you shouldn't be altering the content in order to make it.
The splitting of salamander in my opinion is a POV fork. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Main article: Wikipedia:Content forking
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. Tarchon 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I finally just took out the part about people confusing dragons and salamanders. I tried to clean it up conceptually to defend it, but issue was taken with the lack of source (even if it's pretty obvious). The key problem is that dragons were not commonly associated with fire until comparatively recent times, but I don't really have time to search through stacks of dragon books and find some author who happens to explicitly write about this obvious idea, that two lizard-like things associated with fire are occasionally confused and co-influential. If anyone wants to look, feel free to put it back in. Tarchon 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems disingenuous to include this illustration and then explain at length that it most likely doesn't depict a salamander. It was carried over from the ==Mythology== section of the original Salamander article. If it isn't actually a salamander why include it? If it is kept, then it's probably best to move it (and the discussion) further down the article, rather than include it in the opening paragraph. Just a thought. -- Ant 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Arms-dudley-mbc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This article was created by User:Tarchon under Salamander (legendary creature), then moved (without any discussions) by User:Srnec to Salamanders in folklore and legend and finally by User:Bloodofox to Salamanders in folklore. Following the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary salamander in popular culture, I've renamed it to Cultural depictions of salamanders to broaden the scope (that was unnecessarily narrowed following the moves). Ping AfD participants who commented on the move (for which I believe there is a consensus for): User:Flatscan, User:Daranios, User:Zxcvbnm. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted the removal of this content as, contrary to the IP editor's claim, it was sourced. There may be better sources for the content, and/or sources that debunk the folk etymology but if so those sources (and related content) belong in the article alongside the existing content. If this is the wrong location for the content then it should be moved to the place it is appropriate. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)