Essay talk:Otter

Mainspace move that won't happen
I'm thinking of moving this to mainspace? Any ideas first? -- 17:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I vote against. It's a good article for a nature wiki... But it really has no value at RW.... Let's be honest, very few people are gonna come here wondering about Otters.... SirChuckB  17:37, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * They're about as likely to come here looking for this as they are going to come here looking for 42. I'm going to expand the fossil otters section. Moar evolution. -- 17:44, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

What does this have in terms of value added that the relevant WP article does not? How do otters relate to the purpose of this non-encyclopedia wiki? TheoryOfPractice 17:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Two things: first, we do not have an article on 42..... and second, this is not an evolution wiki. SirChuckB  17:50, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, we do, second, it sort of is. -- 17:52, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Note it's in the fun space. No it sort of isn't. This is how this is going to go: CUR is going to move it into the mainspace, someone is going to tag it mission/delete, there will be a hue and cry and a general gnashing of teeth as CUR tries to argue that it's on-point and others point out that it isn't, the talk page will get to be longer than the article and eventually it will stay there after we put in pictures of otter-men and try to make it funny and on-mission. TheoryOfPractice 17:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC)No we don't, it was deleted in 2007, and just because an animal's evolution can be traced doesn't mean it deserves an article. Try writing about evolutionary traits instead, using animals as examples. Totnesmartin 17:56, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'll just keep it in user space and everybody can suggest bits here. Maybe in a month or two it will be ready. And TOP, good luck finding those pictures (it won't work, there aren't any). -- 18:50, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

There are others that are totally NSFW--and you're not 21 yet. TheoryOfPractice 19:12, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I doubt CUR even knows what NSFW means. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 19:14, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Not Safe For Work. Btw, since when are we a furry art gallery? The first one's fine, the rest are rather pointless. -- 19:15, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
 * This needs snarkification. Anyone care to help? -- 19:04, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Please say these pictures will never make it off the talkpage. Is it too much to ask that fursuits stay off mainspace?-Diadochus 13:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * TOP's the one who's uploading pictures of fursuiters everywhere. His call, not mine. -- 13:02, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh God
I looked hesitantly at this and realized that, oh god in fucking heaven, this is going to be felidae REDUX! So I will make my opinion clear now - NOT MAINSPACE! That is all.......for now...*cryptic*. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 18:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm going to wait for approval. -- 18:28, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You have mine, at least. It looks fine to me; pretty on-topic and decent, and at the least a great basis.  Not wholly on mission, but I don't see why everyone else gets wiggle-room on that but you.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 19:58, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's not remotely on mission, but that's forgivable. I'm just concerned that it's going to turn into another cat fantasy.  Let me ask you point blank: are you also an otter:  Thee Nuttish  Talk 20:04, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * First of all, it's not ready yet. Second of all, no. And even if I was, it would be all-together irrelevent. I simply like otters. Frankly, I don't really see why it should matter WHY something was made, as long as it's good enough. -- 20:28, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * In an ideal world, it doesn't matter whether you're a therian or not. On RW, it's super fun if you're a cat AND an otter.  Everyone likes otters.  They're cute.  But animals articles, which are totally devoid of any opportunity to insert liberal or atheist snark without straining to add a bunch of shit about fossil otters, aren't really the RW thing when they're written with a straight face.  I'm pretty sure the WP article is more comprehensive.  But whatever that means, the main point is why are you doing this?  If it's for practice as a writing exercise to stretch a 14 year old mind, I'll support you to the ends of the earth.  If it's because your therian fantasy includes otters, I'm going to make fun of you, and you're going to be tons stronger for it.  I will teach you young fucker.  Choose.  Thee Nuttish  Talk 20:38, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I choose option 3: I'm trying to write articles on zoology. Otters just happened to be the ones that came across my mind, probably because they're cute. There could be an oppurtunity for snark- admittingly, it would be harder than a subject such as Conservapedia, but it can still be done. -- 20:48, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * is RW the right place for essays on animals? What about wikispecies or something? Totnesmartin 08:23, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Totnesmartin is right. This may be a decent little article, but there's no reason for it to be here--any attempt to make it lulzy is strained at best, and there's nothing special about this article that a reader couldn't get from WP. it should stay as an essay, "Felidae" should become an essay, and CUR should be roughed up a little for unilaterally putting a "Best of Science" tag on that article the other day. TheoryOfPractice 09:08, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * there's getting to be too much of this "straight article" stuff, essay space or no. There was that Julius Caesar effort the other day. People are mistaking this place for an encyclopedia, which might be WP's influence - "wiki" and "encyclopedia" are synonymous to some people. Totnesmartin 10:20, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Mission Creep. We haz it. TheoryOfPractice 10:23, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Indeed. CUR has yet to figure out that we're not the Encyclopedia of Life. Not to say that you're the only offender, CUR, but let's just say you're currently Public Enemy No. 1... -- 10:53, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement. You see that stuff about fossil otters? Refutes the anti-science movement as surely as lungfish. Not only that, that stuff ISN'T at Wikipedia- you can check for yourself. -- 11:29, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Then maybe you should concentrate on getting it into WP, rather than here, where it really is of little relevance to the project. TheoryOfPractice 11:39, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * TOP- it will help refute the anti-science movement. -- 12:01, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm wondering why you think discussing, ad nauseum, the fossil record of the animal kingdom is necessary or helpful. There is stuff you could talk about in regards to zoology that helps refute the creationists and their ilk, but it hardly requires a specific article for every single animal. That's the job of WP and National Geographic and whoever else talks about such things. We talk about this stuff in rather broad terms. An article about Dinosaurs is helpful. Even an article about Archaeopteryx is helpful. An article about Tricerotops is not. Do you see the pattern here? Think of us as a survey course on anti-science. We just provide the outline. Obviously there are some things we're experts on Conservapedia, but we can't get into every single fine detail. An otter article is significantly less useful and pointful than an evolution article. -- 12:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * If you want, I could make it a mustelids article. -- 12:34, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And I also found an example of quack medicine that has to do with otters. -- 12:35, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'd argue for Lungfish here because i wrote it it's an obvious example of a transitional form - and the article exists to make a creatonism-pwning point - its not a general essay about lungfish. It doesn't have for instance, anything about how they breed or what they eat, and nor should it have. Contrast this with this otter article. there's far too much that's about otters, which doesn't serve any purpose and gets in the way - for instance, the Hagerman otter is relevant, but is preceded by info about the beaver-otter - which isn't an otter at all. Do you see what i'm driving at? This article should cut out the fat and be as sleek and pointed as, well, an otter. Totnesmartin 12:41, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I got rid of the beaver-otter. Any other ideas? -- 12:43, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * all the descriptions of different otters can be boiled down into one section, with wp: links to any species mentioned. Also this sentence isn't clear (in the Aonyx subsection): "A species called L. palaeoleptonyx was initally thought to be an ancestor, but it was later proven to be the ancestor of Lutrogale perspicillata." I assume that the L. is Lutrogale, but best to confirm. remember, whole genus name at first mention. I'm off to buy milk and coffee, back in a bit. Totnesmartin 12:49, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, that's what I'm trying to do. See, I've made species one section, with each genus getting a subsection. I'll do the WP links. Enjoy the milk and coffee. -- 12:50, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks. I got a bag of chips and a pickled egg as well. Back to the point, there is no need for subsections on each species - examples that make points yes, but that's it. There's wikipedia for those kind of details. Totnesmartin 13:28, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Pickled egg? Back on topic, I'm including the fossil records of each genus, so the migration routes can be traced. There also happens to be a bit of background info. -- 13:34, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

"it will help refute the anti-science movement." Not really. A concise article on those elements of evolution/fossils/what-have-you might do a little tiny bit of that. This and your other cat article don't. they read too much like a second-rate junior high textbook. "f you want, I could make it a mustelids article" Do. Not. Want. TheoryOfPractice 13:51, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * If I can find where they originated, I can map the migration routes they took. If I can do that, that can refute the Bible. Also, Lutraphobia is a target of quack medicine. -- 13:54, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC) Do not want, indeed. You're missing the point, CUR. Unless there's something particularly exceptional about the evolution of mustelids, that would really help put the fundies in their place, there's not much point. The migration thing can be illustrated much more generally, easily, and succinctly, in another article. Totnesmartin is right, you could probably pare this baby down a bit to just be about the evolution of otters. But in the end, it really isn't necessary. Why otters, CUR? Why not mammals in general? -- 14:01, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC)Then what you need is an article on how migration routes challenge creationism--or better yet, a paragraph or a sentence or two in one of our fine ALREADY EXISTING articles that do that. We don't need a separate article on every dirty little beastie to do that. TheoryOfPractice 14:02, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You've got the fact that they crossed via the Aluetin landbridge which the fundies say doesn't exist. And show me where the articles already exist. You've also got the fact that the European and American otters are near identical. -- 14:04, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Then it belongs in ore of our anti-Flood geology, anti-Creationism articles. Or as evidence in a paragraph about the landbridge in one of those types of articles. TheoryOfPractice 14:06, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And you've got the Hagerman otter. -- 14:14, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Are you even reading the comments people are making? Are you at least trying to think about what people are trying to say? Nobody gives a good goddam about Hagerman otters. LISTEN to what people are saying, THINK about how they might be right. Contribute to the discussion based on what other people are saying. TheoryOfPractice 14:19, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Unfortunately, the only thing that's being said right now is delete, delete. Not much I can do to change their minds. Now, I would LIKE to use this as an example to illustrate land bridges. And what I find exceptional about the fossil history of otters is that it is so well documented. I can trace the path of each species. It's hard to do that with most other species. -- 14:22, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, if people are saying "delete, delete" and nobody in the community is rushing to your support, that might tell you something. Do we have an article on land bridges and land-bridge denial? This article has about two sentences that will fit in there. Write the article and put them in there. TheoryOfPractice 14:24, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * No, we don't. And as I said, in most species, the fossil record isn't so complete. This one is. We should be driving home all of the otter fossils. They illustrate perfectly the steps the order took in evolving. -- 14:31, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * For the last time, then it belongs as a BRIEF passage in an article about evolution, not an article about otters. Not that you'll listen. TheoryOfPractice 14:33, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I see absolutely no reason for this being a mainspace article. If we had a science space then it possibly could go there but, lacking that, we don't need it.--Bobbing up 15:05, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm glad
I missed all this brouhaha. Why not just move CUR's zoology project to his user space and grab anything useful he types for appropriate articles?  ħ uman  15:52, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

...
Let goat and otter coexist in harmony. 21:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not?ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)