![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Pudella carlae appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Hilst
talk
11:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 00:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC).
How many thousands of people came to this article looking for an image based on the description at DYK, only to find there wasn't one? Can I get a refund? Viriditas ( talk) 00:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
So, would the common words "living" or "new" be accurate in the sentence? All species of deer now living on Earth are extant, correct? How does "extant" for this species impart information that is different from "new" or "newly-discovered" or "newly-recognized" or "living"? I saw the blurb in DYK, and thought the use of the jargon is unclear, confusing and ambiguous. I think more readers will readily grasp the meaning of "living" or "new" or "newly-discovered" than "extant". I'm sure many readers are familiar with "extant", as I am, but I do not see how use of that word in this context is more informative, accurate, or quickly comprehended, than those common words. I make these comments in recognition of the fact that Wikipedia articles--and especially the Introduction sections as strongly recommended in multiple guidelines--are supposed to be written for general readers, not experts or specialists. I recommend replacement of extant with one of the common non-jargon words or phrases I've suggested. I note that "extant" is used in the body of the article, where it's appropriate. Omitting it from the Introduction would allow readers who peruse only the Introduction--all that most readers see of any article--to glide through that text without hitting an unhelpful speed bump. While I'm at it, how about using the word "deer" in the Introduction? A link to cervid can be preserved in some fashion in the Introduction if desired, but it's unfair to readers to omit a universally recognizable word (deer) and instead force readers to chase a link from a word almost none of them will know. If I may repeat myself, multiple guidelines strongly recommend using plain language in the Introduction to articles, because that's the part most readers will ever see. Introductions are to be written for them (most readers), not for a minority of experts, specialists or scientists. DonFB ( talk) 11:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from Pudella carlae appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
The result was: promoted by
Hilst
talk
11:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 00:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC).
How many thousands of people came to this article looking for an image based on the description at DYK, only to find there wasn't one? Can I get a refund? Viriditas ( talk) 00:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
So, would the common words "living" or "new" be accurate in the sentence? All species of deer now living on Earth are extant, correct? How does "extant" for this species impart information that is different from "new" or "newly-discovered" or "newly-recognized" or "living"? I saw the blurb in DYK, and thought the use of the jargon is unclear, confusing and ambiguous. I think more readers will readily grasp the meaning of "living" or "new" or "newly-discovered" than "extant". I'm sure many readers are familiar with "extant", as I am, but I do not see how use of that word in this context is more informative, accurate, or quickly comprehended, than those common words. I make these comments in recognition of the fact that Wikipedia articles--and especially the Introduction sections as strongly recommended in multiple guidelines--are supposed to be written for general readers, not experts or specialists. I recommend replacement of extant with one of the common non-jargon words or phrases I've suggested. I note that "extant" is used in the body of the article, where it's appropriate. Omitting it from the Introduction would allow readers who peruse only the Introduction--all that most readers see of any article--to glide through that text without hitting an unhelpful speed bump. While I'm at it, how about using the word "deer" in the Introduction? A link to cervid can be preserved in some fashion in the Introduction if desired, but it's unfair to readers to omit a universally recognizable word (deer) and instead force readers to chase a link from a word almost none of them will know. If I may repeat myself, multiple guidelines strongly recommend using plain language in the Introduction to articles, because that's the part most readers will ever see. Introductions are to be written for them (most readers), not for a minority of experts, specialists or scientists. DonFB ( talk) 11:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)