Talk:Hominid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

[edit] Disambiguating links from Hominid to Hominidae

Hello,

I am involved in the ongoing Wiki disambiguation project. (See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for more information.)

• I have been correcting the links in various articles from "hominid" to "Hominidae". Note: this does not mean changing the visible text, just the underlying link, so that the reader reaches an article instead of a disambiguation page. This is the purpose of disambiguation.
• However, user UtherSRG has been reverting all my corrections.

I could use some help here. I have spent hours on this project. Thanks. Iggle 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read the hominid article, you'd see that there is plenty of information that makes this more than just a typical disambiguation page. You wouldn't have wasted as much of time on this if you'd halted when I first asked you to instead of undoing my reverts and carrying on with your "repairs". Some of the edits you made were good, but others were not. This article talks about the distinctions in terminology, the difference in the various terms used to describe various hominoids. The Hominidae article describes the family of apes. Let me repeat: one is an article about terminology, one is an artile about animals. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we please keep this discussion about the topic? I will disregard your outright and implied slurs.

To try to reply to some of the factual points you have brought up:

1. The hominid dab page is not actually very atypical. Many dab pages include brief explanations about the different links listed, as this one does.
2. I left the revert you made, as you requested, on the Human Evolution page. If you were asking me to stop all disambiguation efforts regarding the hominid dab page, that was not clear to me. I thought your request was in regards to one page.
3. I don't consider my efforts a waste of time, any more than you do yours, I imagine.
4. There isn't an "article" per se about this terminology. A disambiguation page is not quite the same as an article. They have different functions.

If there are discussions of related terminology in articles, then it might be appropriate to link to a detailed discussion of the terminology. However, if an article simply mentions the term "hominid," then it is appropriate to link to a page that gives further information about hominids--and that would be the Hominidae page.

If you feel that the Hominidae article is incomplete in such a way that the reader needs more explanation of terminology, you might consider adding that explanation. However, I think this is covered by the first line, "For an explanation of very similar terms...."

If you feel that an article about terminology is needed, you might write one. According to wiki policy, one shouldn't intentionally use frequent links to disambiguation pages. (See Disambiguation_page#Confusion.) Iggle 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read your talk page, you'll remember that I mentioned nothing about the Human Evolution page specifically when I asked you to stop. I asked you to stop "fixing" the hominid links. The hominid dab page *is* different than most dabs. Most dabs have just a single line for each entry. This dab has a whole paragraph above and below the line-by-line disambiguation. If it makes it easier for you to swallow, I'm removing the dab tag. Now it's not a dab page at all. Look at the edit history of this page and of Hominidae. It's not a typical dab. Leave the links as they are within articles (the taxobox fixes were correct). Good day sir. - UtherSRG (talk)

Making that an article rather than a dab page is an excellent idea. It removes the entire difficulty--and you won't run into this issue with the next "de-daber" to innocently stumble upon your domain. Good thinking, ma'am. Iggle 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm a guy. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I rather thought so. But I'm not, so I was just making a little repartee. --Iggle 19:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh! *blush* My bad. Sorry. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extinct species

I assume that all the groups include extinct species as well as living ones, for instance Homo erectus. Could this be made clear in the first sentence? Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure!. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)