Wikipedia talk:WikiFauna/Archive 1

Wikipig redirect to Wikigiant
Why does Wikipig redirect to Wikigiant? Usws (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone didn't like that one.. See Wikipedia talk:WikiGiant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

New species
Can't there be a wiki chicken? I mean come on wiki pig, wiki cat, what about those who want make a post but are scared that their info is wrong or that something might happen if they try to edit? Cause that is totally me. Jun Hao Wu 07:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am making that right now. Would you mind making the template? Jason13579 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Culling spurious or facetious fauna
I think there needs to be some inclusion criteria for WikiFauna. Characterizing editing styes has some educational and reflective merit, but spurious or facetious fauna detract from the study. I suggest that for a WikiFauna to be valid, there needs to be at least one example user. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiBishop for an example of reaction against the excessive spurious or facetious fauna. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sauce for the Goose?
I think it would be only fair that if someone suggests a MfD on one species of WikiFauna, that they apply the same standards and MfD all WikiFauna ... but then I am biased, I suppose, as someone has just suggested that WikiWolfcub should be deleted, saying it is basically the same as WikiPuppy - when in fact the whole point of it is that it is not the same as WikiPuppy! ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question
Which kind of fauna most resembles a human (generally apparently human, anyway) accountant? John Carter (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiGnome?--Wikimedes (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiFauna Addition!
Hey I have a addition to the wikifauna to add! Its called the WikiBorg! I was hoping you guys could make the page so I can get to work on it :D Andrew Wiggin (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose WikiGaullois as a new member of the WikiFauna! The Purpose: To bring into the English Wikipedia the French and Francophone richness by creating, editing and complementing the available french sources in the English wikipedia.Castelamfr (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's spelled "Gaulois", with a single l, in French. Also, Gauls aren't limited to modern-day France, and neither are French speakers. I would suggest finding a better name for it. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you talk Understood and grateful for the clarification, I wanted to make it different by altering the spelling. So here is another option, with the same purpose, how about WikiMandagot ?talk Castelamfr (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Question...
What would one call a WikiPlatypus that most closely resembles a WikiPuma? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggest merging/combining the WikiWitch and WikiWizard references
At present the text presents:

===WikiWitch=== The WikiWitch, a capricious creature whose devotion to arcane knowledge overshadows their every act. Can be mistaken for all sorts of WikiFauna.

WikiWizard
A WikiWizard edits in order to keep the universe in order, by fixing small errors, helping with dispute resolutions, and occasionally helping fight vandalism and trolls.

Surely witch and wizard references, with their accompanying gender related images on their individually asigned pages, should otherwise present much the same thing at this stage of navigation. GregKaye 19:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Addition of
Shouldn't the template be included at the top of this page since it is clearly a for-fun page? --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 06:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary. Unlike the fauna articles themselves, it's not written from an "in-universe" perspective. Rebb  ing  06:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Has anybody researched the taxonomy of these creatures to establish relational characteristics among them? 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F853:9A57:8459:1F05 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy editing allowed?
Hi! I noticed that this page may need some copy editing done. Since this is not a humor page (established on this talk page, in the section called Addition of  ), would it be reasonable for me to copy edit this page? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Rules apply to all WikiFauna
I didn't check every title, but when I see that a WikiGnome doesn't write edit summaries on minor edits, I start questioning if this is a good thing or not. Always provide an edit summary! Adding edit summaries is considered good practice, helpful, polite, you name it. Even for minor edits they are of (less) importance (less doesn't mean not).

Also, what does it mean for a WikiGnome to not clamour for attention? Is that about not adding edit summaries? I mean, I'm not an attention whore, but I always try to add a summary of what I did. I think it's the right thing to do. WikiFairy:Karel Adriaan (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaving out the edit summary can lead to people thinking it's vandalism. I'd say if you don't write them, people will pay more attention than if you do. – Pretended leer { talk } 20:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Idea: WikiGhost and WikiPoultergeist
WikiGhosts are users whose edits are almost exclusively spelling and grammar corrects (Compare to WikiJanitors, who also revert vandalism) WikiPoultergeists are users who make small edits that are usually missed, but that disrupt the article.

Ew
This is cringe lol 🔥flame🔥talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Add new animal?
Should we add thee WikiRhino? 'Cheers! Central Time 301' 23:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiLion
I would like to add a WikiLion fauna, but don't have any ideas. You can contact me on my talk page if you wold like to help. Thanks! Jason1357902 ( talk ) 15:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason1357902 (talk • contribs)

Meta side
Which WikiFauna applies to people who work on the behind the scenes of wikipedia, such as userbox and template makers, if any? Thanks. Littlecat456 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am so glad you asked. It sounds like you may be the second Wikipedian to join our burrow!!! Come join the WikiPrarie Dogs!!! We all live in one big burrow, and it's a never-ending community building effort, along with a community chatterfest!! feel free to check out our draft, below! thanks!! cheers!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Added new WikiAnimal: WikiPrairie Dog
Hi. everyone. I have a new WikiFauna that I would like to add here. it is the WikiPrairie dog. you can view a draft text for this WikiAnimal at the link below.


 * Link to Draft: User:Sm8900/Drafts/Draft of WikiPrairie dog.

Please feel free to make any comments. you can feel free to comment on this talk page, or at the talk page for the draft document. I appreciate it. thanks!!! cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added this WikiFauna to this article as well now. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you add a wikipenguin? Geekpotato24 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I can do this if you need. TigerScientist  Chat > contribs 15:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiOrca
Can someone help me build a WikiOrca page? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 23:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You can still help WikiOrca, but I have an idea for a WikiDragon WikiKnight rivalry page. TigerScientist  Chat > contribs 20:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Rights
I feel like that the creator of the page of a WikiFauna should be the one who could put "TigerScientist, 2021" and not the real world animal. They should also have species naming rights. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 00:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:WikiRodent
Any feedback for this article is appreciated! I'm hoping to have it added to this page soon. –– FormalDude  talk  04:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC) (please use&#32; on reply&#59; thanks!)

Duplicate WikiHobbit
The Classic WikiFauna WikiHobbit had a longer summary than the Expanded WikiFauna WikiHobbit, but neither looks like a subset of the other. Should they be merged and reconciled, or should one be renamed or removed? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge probably Dronebogus (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Cute but...
This is a great idea, I think it can be improved a bit to make it even greater! This series of essays are cute, but they may be quite inaccurate, due to the reason that the characters are post-rationalised based on the label, whereas first one looks at the traits and classifies them, then adds a label which best suits. As a result many people probably think "what am I? Am I a dryad or a doppleganger?" (D&D joke, sorry). There is a lot of work in Belbin Team Inventory, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Personality type which may help, e.g. an expert on psychometric tests could give it a look through. Plus I'd be nice if the theme of the labels were mythical races only and not animals. In my opinion, but I am not an expert, there are the following scales: There is also Queen's English or american dialect, but that is not a difference it is just bad grammar by the latter group of speakers. Point 3 and 7 are both enterprising-ness. Some such as 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 can be scored automatically (6 would need category knowledge), but bot-handlers would be misscored by such a script.
 * 1) users dedicate differ amounts of time
 * 2) the time dedicated is not uniformly distributed (bouts of activity)
 * 3) time is divided differently in anti-vandalism reversion, small edits, rewrites and new articles
 * 4) time spent on "home turf" or patrolling around.
 * 5) inclusionism and delitionism
 * 6) time is divided differently between hobby/pop-trivia and science/engineering/humanities
 * 7) view of the policies range from divine commandments to general guidelines which can be ignore for valiant causes (similar to D&D alignemnt chaos, neutral and order, which are independent of good, neutral and evil)
 * 8) community engagement: seek acknowledgement (new article editing is often unrewarding), delegate or help out

If someone could expand/comment on this, I think I would be nice to confer an overall structure as it is now, to me only Gnome seems right. --Squidonius (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For a serious analysis of some archetypes (7 in this case) that Wikipedians could be said to fall into, see meta:Research:Editor Lifecycles, particularly the definitions in that section, and the 2 images immediately following.
 * The other classic schemes are Wiki personality type and Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies.
 * Regardings MyersBriggs et al, you might be interested in my compilation at User:Quiddity/Human archetype systems. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Overlooked species
[The above WikiChicken entry can also be described by this entry:] From my (incomplete) reading of the WikiFauna section, I've reluctantly concluded that one species has been overlooked. Although this WikiCritter shares characteristics with the "good-intentioned", though "naive and hapless", WikiDodo, it's an even lesser creature, squeaking alone in the WikiWilderness. I refer to the WikiDormouse and to its English cousin, the WikiGryphonDormouse. WikiDormice (surely, there's more than one!), like it's fuzzy mammalian counterparts, are omnivorous, attracted by a wide-range of tasty WikiArticles, from berries to insects to biographies of Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier. However, due to their timidity, they frequently nibble only around the edges, hiding from other WikiCritters that they see as predatory. Although they might summon up the courage to expose themselves long enough to correct a misspelling, delete an errant coma, or suggest a citation source on a Talkpage, they don't want to ruffle the rapture-like feathers of a page's "real" editors thereby drawing their eagle-eyed attention. Sure, the tiny WikiDormouse has read the "Be bold" directive, but has also read plenty of editorial scoldings directed towards those who alter a page without a thorough discussion consensus and so shuns such activity. Its little head reels. Such WikiWorkings contribute mightily to the tiny creature's profound sense of intellectual unworthiness, spelling insufficiency, and grammatical deficiency. How can the WikiDormouse contribute meaningfully to the Wikipedia effort if it shrinks from predatory criticism and fears that it cannot write a respectable complete sentence worthy of consideration, let alone one that a diagrammer can parse with flourish? With such intellectual handicaps, they naturally turn to Wikipedia: helperpages for guidance. Alas, there's no refuge found there. Due either to the WikiDormouse's ineptitude at divining a topic's exact listing or to WP's torturous, self-referencingly dense helper pages, if it cannot sniff out an answer in less than 1 hour and 44 minutes of vain searching, it throws up its cutely diminutive paws in utter rodential frustration. The WikiDormouse is frequently nocturnal in it's habits when "real" editors are sleeping soundly, less likely to surprise the timid creature by suddenly springing from behind a Talkpage post. If such a predatory springage does occur, periods of hibernation by the minuscule rodent are observed. The WikiDormouse (and the WikiGryphonDormouse) wants to be a helpful, if tiny, team player, but lacks the skills to be effective or even to search out helpful Wikipedia: pages. If a stronger, nurturing, but non-predatory, WikiCritter could adopt a fledgling WikiDormouse, show it the WikiRopes, and how to effectively find information in WP's bloated helperpages, it could grow more independent, like a WikiOtter or at least an evolutionarily halfway example between the WikiDormouse and the WikiOtter, the WikiDotter. Without such support (in figuring out how the site works and from aggressive editorial tactics), the tiny, glassy-eyed rodent will remain a lone timid voice, squeaking in the wilderness. Squeakingly yours, Wordreader (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I forget to mention that, in addition to timidity, the WikiDormouse is markedly shy and sensitive? Yes, I did forget! Wordreader (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for WikiFauna
When a WikiFauna exists or is newly created below a certain standard, that casts a cloud on the remaining WikiFauna. A problem with WikiFauna was that it lacked an inclusion criteria. When these come up for deletion at MfD, the issues are unclear and the discussion is scattered. I went through:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiBishop
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia gremlins
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiritual Fauna
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiSloth
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiToyol
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWolfcub

and develop and posted an inclusion criteria. Feel free to revise it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about dropping a note to the original editor with suggestions for improving the WikiFauna to bring it 'up to standard' and make it 'meaningful' rather than just suggesting it be removed? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the page has some guidelines, that should stem the recent flow of WikiFauna MfDs (which was my motivation for starting the project guideline). Also, just after my first post to the page, I realized that I left out a suggestion to improve rather than delete and added this post having "may be improved". Initially, I thought this whole fauna thing was a dumb idea, but on looking into it, my fuddy-duddy side thawed and I've come to realize that it is a very valuable tool to improve the encyclopedia, particular for the younger and free spirited Wikipedians. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have only just read this! Uzma Gamal, have a hug :o) I'm delighted your fuddy-duddy side has thawed, and I'm even more delighted (tickled pink!) that I apparently come into the category of "younger and free-spirited Wikipedians" ..... bearing in mind that in Real Life I  actually have five grandchildren .... :D  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)