Talk:Human uses of living things

Rename to "Living beings in culture"
I propose to rename the article "Living things in culture" to "Living beings in culture" because a living creature is by definition not a thing, it is a being. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, please not, and I do hope you are not going to go about from one article to another with any kind of religious or ethical point of view. This is absolutely a neutrally titled article. We as editors should not want any implication that it is connected with any religious point of view as the proposed title and the proposed reason above would give it, something clearly against policy. Further, the article covers living things such as fungi and bacteria used in fermentation, where the term "being" would frankly just seem strange. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Living things in culture. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://library.cshl.edu/archives/archives/bmcbio.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325025627/http://www.ku.lt/leidykla/leidiniai/Archaeologia_BALTICA/Archaeologia_BALTICA_15.pdf to http://www.ku.lt/leidykla/leidiniai/Archaeologia_BALTICA/Archaeologia_BALTICA_15.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) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Living things in culture. 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/20160414142437/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/ to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924062658/http://www.ibidispress.scriptmania.com/box_widget.html to http://www.ibidispress.scriptmania.com/box_widget.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150328060739/http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap1/sect1.htm to http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap1/sect1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304102728/http://www.shea-online.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Animals%20in%20Healthcare%20Facilities.pdf to http://www.shea-online.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Animals%20in%20Healthcare%20Facilities.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160923134807/https://lionalert.org/page/Lion_Depiction_Across_Ancient_and_Modern_Religions to https://lionalert.org/page/Lion_Depiction_Across_Ancient_and_Modern_Religions

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) 10:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
I wrote this article some years ago using over 100 reliable sources. I imagine most editors will agree that humans make and have for many centuries made many uses of animals, for food, for other practical purposes, and symbolically such as in art. These uses are extremely widely attested. I believe the article does a workmanlike job of covering 'the main points' as required for a GA. The original title 'in culture's turned out to be confusing for some editors as its meaning 'what humans do' as in the article on Culture is in some minds overridden by the connotations of high culture -- art, music, etc -- which is just a fraction of the uses intended here. I hope this is clear and the article is found to be a straightforward and honest piece of work. I am to be honest a bit shocked to have this levelled against this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Animals are not the sum total of all living things which makes me concerned that you may have had a different idea in mind than what this article is ostensibly about. What "main points" are you referring to exactly? Can you point to any other reference work which has an article this broad? I am not questioning the amount of work you put into this piece. I am questioning whether this is in the remit of Wikipedia to include such a thing. It is, as far as I can tell, a novel synthesis of material, and that's not allowed. jps (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, the topic is too broad and is WP:SYNTH, I think the next step is to take this to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes I had in mind a similar TfD process. The article is of course about the full range of living things, an cited as such.Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)