User talk:PadreSmurf

July 2016
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Christopher Smart's asylum confinement. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I really don't believe this is a useful or necessary addition to the article: please read the policy on reliable sources. If, having done that, you still believe that some dubious collective noun that nobody has used for a century or more is a necessary addition to the article, take it to the talk page and attempt to gain consensus for your view - don't, please, keep on attempting to add it to the article without agreement - that way, only edit-warring and trouble lie. For my money, a small number of Victorians found it sentimentally amusing to make up ridiculous terms for groups of animals, of which very few ever found their way into common usage. We use herd, flock, shoal, swarm, group, and frankly not a lot else. There may be a list article containing such things, but a serious biology article really doesn't need anything like that (i.e. the addition makes the article worse, not better). Thanks for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)