13,961
edits
Talk:Mattermouth: Difference between revisions
m
→Comments
m (→Oppose) |
Megadardery (talk | contribs) m (→Comments) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
'''@Walkazo''': but is a resemblance enough to warrant them as a sub-species?--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 15:43, 2 January 2014 (EST) | '''@Walkazo''': but is a resemblance enough to warrant them as a sub-species?--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 15:43, 2 January 2014 (EST) | ||
:Our use of "sub-species" is garbage: it's an empty term that we slap on anything with a design based on a more generic thing. But I'm ''not'' advocating for subspecies designation anyway. Simply saying they're vaguely related would be ideal: leave them in the Dry Bones template and category and leave the links on the article and in the infobox, but replace the sub-species category with a regular species one. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 16:04, 2 January 2014 (EST) | :Our use of "sub-species" is garbage: it's an empty term that we slap on anything with a design based on a more generic thing. But I'm ''not'' advocating for subspecies designation anyway. Simply saying they're vaguely related would be ideal: leave them in the Dry Bones template and category and leave the links on the article and in the infobox, but replace the sub-species category with a regular species one. - {{User:Walkazo/sig}} 16:04, 2 January 2014 (EST) | ||
::I don't totally agree with you, I suggest saying that they are similar but removing them from the Dry Bones sub-species and removing the Dry Bones category.--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 16:12, 2 January 2014 (EST) | |||