Talk:False potto

Untitled
Link of Jeffrey Schwartz's name is to the wrong Jeffrey Schwartz.130.49.147.40 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
Well, boys and girls, we have our first controversy over the text of this article! Maky and Complainer have a disagreement about the inclusion of explanations for certain unusual words in the text (boldfaced):

In the introduction:


 * The false potto generally resembles a small potto, but according to Schwartz it differs in having a longer tail, shorter spines on its neck and chest vertebrae, a smaller, less complex spine on the second neck vertebra, an entepicondylar foramen (an opening in the humerus, or upper arm bone), a lacrimal fossa (a depression in the skull) that is located inside the eye socket, a smaller upper third premolar and molar, and higher-crowned cheekteeth, among other traits. However, many of these traits are variable among pottos; for example, one researcher found entepicondylar foramina in almost half of the specimens in his sample of pottos.

and, in the "Taxonomy" section:


 * In a series of potto (Perodicticus potto) skeletons in the collections of the Anthropological Institute and Museum of the University of Zurich at Irchel, anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz recognized two specimens with traits he believed distinct from all pottos, and in 1996 he used these two specimens to describe a new genus and species of primate, Pseudopotto martini. The generic name, Pseudopotto, combines the element pseudo- (Greek for "false") with "potto", referring to superficial similarities between the new form and the potto. The specific name, martini, honors primatologist Robert D. Martin.

Complainer calls this "pedantic etymology and explanations we have wikilinks for" and "annoying cruft". Maky notes that the text in question passed the Featured Article review, arguing that this is good evidence of its appropriateness. Let's head off an edit war (see Criterion 5 above) and get an early consensus. Thoughts? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel I have to clarify a couple of things. First I do not question the "appropriateness" of the content. I question its utility, and argument that the article reads much, much better without it. In the meanwhile, another, anonymous, user has re-inserted all the cruft because "people don't know what a lacrimal fossa is". I'll point out that I myself did not know what a lacrimal fossa was until a little while ago. I followed the wikilink (something anybody without severe arthritis can easily do), and I now know. This is not a paper encyclopedia but, most of all, it is not a collection of essays: the articles are not self-contained entities, and the explanation of everything is a click away. People have to get used to this; not linking lacrimal fossa is a crime. Putting a cranked, short explanation of it in the text of an article that has nothing to do with physiology is, well, pedantic, annoying cruft and confusing to both subjects.

Then there is the matter of etymology. Yes, every scientific name is in Latin (which makes it quite silly to say anything "comes from Latin": it never left Latin to go anywhere else), and scientists have to pull something out of their arse every time they name a new species. However, people reading about an alleged simian species would hardly be interested in a pedantic, detailed decomposition of each word of the name; also, technically speaking, Pseudopotto martini does not mean anything but this particular alleged species of tarsier. The rest is just how people got there. complainer (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To address the first point, the descriptive text was (and still is?) a requirement to get anything technical passed at FAC. At first I opposed it, preferring wikilinks... but we work by consensus, and the editors who did the reviews for this and many other articles required more details in the text itself.  If you have a problem here, you'll have a problem with countless mushroom, bird, and primate FAs.  They all do the same thing.  As for the etymology, a detailed breakdown of each part of the scientific name is standard.  They do it on Wikictionary, too.  It also helps to explain (as best as the sources can) as to why the authority named it a "false potto".  Also, I'm not sure what's up with Complainer's tone.  If he read the article, he obviously knows we're not talking about simians here, nor this is a tarsier.  I suspect trolling. –  Maky  « talk » 12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we have now heard from the parties involved. Any outsiders want to weigh in? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on False potto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317232606/http://www.primate-sg.org/PDF/AP3.1-2.pdf to http://www.primate-sg.org/PDF/AP3.1-2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317232606/http://www.primate-sg.org/PDF/AP3.1-2.pdf to http://www.primate-sg.org/PDF/AP3.1-2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317232606/http://www.primate-sg.org/PDF/AP3.1-2.pdf to http://www.primate-sg.org/PDF/AP3.1-2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How is this featured?
The lead section has no sources. The article doesn't contain any images either. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)