Talk:Pudella carlae

Image
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)


 * @Viriditas Added the reqphoto template. The deer must be cute... BorgQueen (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * it was all over Reddit a while back. One of the cutest things ever. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize for messing that up, but none of the photos were under a compatible license. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Extant
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)
 * I'm sorry, I messed that one up, I'm an idiot. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 12:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No self-flagellation needed. But it would be great to see replacement of "extant cervid" in the lede section along the lines of "newly-discovered species of deer". It's a case of violating the concept of using fewer words to be concise, but in this case, a few user-friendly words would make a much better reading experience for people we want to inform than unfamiliar jargon from zoology or biology textbooks or science journals. Such specialized language can be used in the body of the article, but should be avoided in the lede section, per the encyclopedia's multiple style and writing guidelines. Of course, I can do it myself, but I'm trying to get a feel for any objections. DonFB (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think "newly-discovered" should be added in this context (especially since the sentence reads "the first to be discovered in the 21st century", so saying it's the first newly-discovered doesn't really work). I changed "extant cervid species" to "living deer species", that should do it. To be honest, I used "cervid" at first just because I wasn't sure whether all cervids were considered deer, but that should be fine. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One more request, if I may. It would be helpful to use the word "deer" in the first sentence. The word "cervid" now appears there and is linked--to the word "deer". So, use of cervid in the first sentence does not serve a purpose, except to replace an ordinary word with one that is likely recognizable only to wildlife specialists or students of zoology, biology or taxonomy, and not to our largest audience: the general reader, like me, for example. Elsewhere in the article, outside the infobox, the word cervidae might be shown and briefly explained. That may have been the idea of using cervid in the first sentence, but the word is merely a redirect to deer, and not to an article further exploring the intricacies of taxonomy. So, the first sentence does not yet serve what should be its highest purpose: to be instantly informative, and not--unless it is absolutely necessary (virtually never, in my opinion)--send readers off to another article before they even finish reading the first sentence. DonFB (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. If the problem is really just a single word, you can change it yourself, I don't think it would be that controversial. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 04:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Not all article authors on technical or semi-technical subjects are as amenable to such seemingly small but useful (imo) changes as you have been. DonFB (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It's true that it makes the lead more readable indeed! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 08:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)