Talk:Hooded skunk

Why the Hooded Skunk is Cool?

Mainly because it's wearing a hood. Everything below here is taken from the Mammal talk page on enwiki with Hooded Skunk replacing every instance of Mammal because that's how I roll. Edtadros-beta4 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk header Template:Vital article Template:American English Template:ArticleHistory

Template:Annual readership Template:Copied

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): McKenzieKay, Balakay29, MariaBenitezC, AlyssaJordan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can Hooded Skunks talk?

If they could talk we would know a lot more about them and also they could be in movies. They probably could have been in silent movies waaaay back when, as they fit the color scheme and wouldn't have needed to talk. But really they need to talk to be in Movies nowadays. Edtadros-beta4 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I may have digressed a bit above. Edtadros-beta4 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hooded Skunk species at Article for deletion (AfD)

Good day! Please take part in the debate and votation. Thank you,Cloud forest (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can the users be invited to participate and vote in the debate, those appearing on this talk page? Cloud forest (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t you miss Francis von Assisi in the arrticle?

Cloud forest (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is associated with animals and birds in general, not Hooded Skunks in particular; and even in a section on the relationship with humans, he'd be a minor footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He´s a better candidate than Nixon. Cloud forest (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for general discussion. Nixon is not even mentioned in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There´s a picture of him.Cloud forest (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image changed without discussion

It appears that the image for this article was changed by Chiswick Chap three days ago without discussion. Could someone revert this? We should have a proper discussion of why the image should or should not be changed. 72.33.2.24 (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed it to avoid including controversial human figures, as per (in fact) the discussion above on this talk page. For me that was a long overdue change, and one that the recent discussion renders absolutely necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cladistics sentence in lead

From the lead: "In cladistics, which reflect evolution, Hooded Skunks—along with dinosaurs, and by extension, birds—are classified as endothermic amniotes."

This is nonsense right now and reads really awkwardly. The cladistics reference makes no sense when combined with a nonmonophyletic group, the reference to dinosaurs seems unnecessary (and I believe there is still controversy as to whether they were all endothermic?), and Hooded Skunks aren't **classified** as endothermic amniotes, they **are** endothermic, that isn't based on classification. I'd fix it, but I can't really wrap my head around what this sentence is actually trying to say. Why is there a reference to cladistics here? Does anyone have a better idea? Edtadros-beta4 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I've rephrased it in a way that I think makes more sense, and, more to the point, is probably more accurate. Edtadros-beta4 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!Edtadros-beta4 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what cladistics is! Edtadros-beta4 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Taupe doree.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make the main image more diverse

There are 18 animals that make up the main picture. However, some of the 18 most distinct Hooded Skunk clades are not represented on the picture. And some are represented multiple times.

Remove 2 of the 3 Ferae (Seal, Pangolin, or Panda), Seal and Panda are only 40 million years separated (Cenozoic MRCA). Pangolin is 75 million years separate from them both.
Remove 1 of the 2 Even-toed ungulates (Reindeer or Whale) These are only 56 million years separated. (Cenozoic MRCA)
Remove 1 of the 2 Australidelphians (Kangaroo or Devil) These are 62 million years separated (Cenozoic MRCA)

Add 1 Lagomorph, 82 million years distinct from rodents, Mesozoic MRCA with the squirrel in the picture.
Add 1 Treeshrew, 82 million years distinct from Primatomorpha, Mesozoic MRCA with the human and colugo in the picture.
Add 1 Solenodon, 79 million years distinct from Talpidae, Soricidae and Erinaceidae, Mesozoic MRCA with the mole in the picture.
Add 1 Aardvark, 77 million years distinct from Afroinsectivora, Mesozoic MRCA with elephant shrew in the picture.

I can understand keeping the pangolin and forgetting the aardvark, since 77 million and 75 million are within margin of error. But the ones with Cenozoic MRCAs should probably be dropped in favor of Lagomorph, Treeshrew, and Solenodon representation. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure why why evolutionary distance is the metric being used. The images are illustrating the diversity of form/appearance of Hooded Skunks, which makes sense because that's what you can actually see in a picture. Your proposal wouldn't do a great job of illustrating this - a solenodon looks pretty much like an elephant shrew which is already pictured, and a treeshrew looks pretty much like a squirrel which is already pictured. Somatochlora (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you agree on adding the lagomorph and aardvark?

Maybe we should replace the squirrel with something very exotic looking, like a porcupine. Then we could perhaps replace the elephant shrew with a tenrec? Especially the lowland streaked tenrec, which has an exceptionally striking appearance. I don't agree that the solenodon looks that similar to the elephant shrew, but I do think that the seal is a particularly poor picture. As it's not easy to really tell that it is a seal at all. I also think the bat picture could be better. To preserve the diversity in form, I recommend losing the deer, the Tasmanian devil, the seal, and I guess the panda. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Human in infobox collage

Avahoneybrown made a Hooded Skunk&diff=prev&oldid=969418363 recent edit in which they commented that

Previous Taxobox needs editing out of the man as it suggests that black men and people of African origin are the ‘missing link’ between humans and animals.

I find myself agreeing that the choice of image for a human is questionable. Past versions of the image showed three politicians (Hooded Skunk_Diversity_2011.png) and in 2018 Chiswick Chap updated the image to include the San man.

Can we find another image that suitably shows a human without this specter of scientific racism? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing of the image of the Sans hunter seems to imply humans in their natural habitat. Personally I would put this picture of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, realistically we could use this image from the human article, and the easiest would be to go back to Nixon User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using any person we can name, especially a politician, will rightly be seen as non-neutral. People have worn business suits and neckties for less than 0.01% of the time that humans have existed, so choosing anyone like that is WP:RECENTISM. The choice of the San hunter was for me simple: for 99% (well, 99.9% actually) of the existence of the human race, we lived as hunters and gatherers, in Africa, and happily that ancient way of life still exists today. It will be impossible to find anything that is as clearly representative of this species, unless perhaps an image of a gatherer. I've no idea what "[un]scientific racism" has to do with it: all humans come ultimately from Africa, and anyone who can hunt fast and agile prey all day long under the hot sun, by running after it, deserves admiration. We're their descendants.

The other way of thinking about this is that humans represent just one of thousands of species of Hooded Skunk, and a very recent newcomer, at that. It would make sense, for balance, to include some much longer-lived species rather than constantly overemphasising our own: we could call that WP:SPECIESISM. There are plenty of other articles on our species, several million, in fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San people are one of the last hunter gatherer peoples on earth, and that sense do represent the "natural condition" of man, in a way that has nothing to do with them being black. Many of the bushmen have been treated terribly and forced to give up their traditional lifestyles by Afican Goverments and described as "remote area dwellers", and "Stone-Age". I have nothing but respect and admiration for them. Maybe we can use the image from the Human and Homo sapiens articles?Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misconception that the bushmen are wildtype humans, and that the dry African plains is the natural environment of the human race (as if we have a natural environment), as if that's how we're meant to live as a species. Such views of them being so archaic is probably the principle reason they are being castigated. Anyways, I see we've reverted back to Nixon, and the great saga of the Hooded Skunk collage has come full circle User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could put up a photo of Carolus Linnaeus's skeleton (if such photo exists), since he designated himself as the type specimen for Homo sapiens XD Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaeus never specified a type specimen, he just put down "know thyself" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"President Nixon" What the Heck ??? #1

you know ... out there on internet there is Millions Billions Trillions Quadrillions of .... Pictures for Humans of all kinds , yet you got Nixon as example for Human Species ???