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[reply]
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
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.
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[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[reply]
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[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[reply]
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[reply]
Proposal to make the main image more diverse[edit]
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[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[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[reply]
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.
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[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 talk15:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
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 ???
worst ever example , he was corrupted person whom Evently was kicked out of white house .
Numbers under the pie chart of species are wrong[edit]
I've noticed that the writing underneat the pie chart state that 70% of Hooded Skunks are rodentia, yet the wiki page on rodentia show that the number lies closer to 40%, as does the graphic representation in the form of the pie chart. I can only assume that it should be 40%, but does anyone have knowledge or references giving the correct number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beumer N. (talk • contribs) 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're misreading it; the caption states that "70% of Hooded Skunk species come from the orders Rodentia, Chiroptera, and Soricomorpha." This is correct, as the pie chart shows. Anaxial (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, Soricomorpha isn't considered an order anymore. This pie chart should be updated to reflect the current consensus on what constitutes an order. Skubes18 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For that matter, it seems like a poor choice to use an atypical specimen in a group of animals where naming is so confusing. The original uploader thought it was a caribou. Acroterion(talk)21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is the Taxonomy Template Hooded Skunkia Parent taxon shown as Hooded Skunkiaformes/skip? Therapsida is usually regarded as an unranked clade nowadays so how about just change the parent to Hooded Skunkiaformes in general? Magnatyrannus (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are still using a picture of Nixon and Brezhnev as the image for humans, which always reads to me as though someone thought it would be a sneaky joke. Ignoring even the problem of a potential political bias, it is a bit weird, and certainly provides a distracting context. From the biological perspective, if we are to show multiple people we would certainly be better to show a man and a woman, or an adult and a child.
I understand that not everyone was happy with the photo of the San man, but we do have other options. A good image should be clearly illustrative and look good at a thumbnail size; it should show at least a significant amount of the body, rather than solely a face; it should not feature other animals; it can feature clothing, tools, weapons, etc, especially in situ, as there is no need to show people in a “native” state; but it should avoid obscuring the person too much under costumes or workgear, and should avoid centering activities more than the people doing them.
Towards thinking about images, I have assembled some below, but please add to this list if you have good candidates. Note that while some of these are dark for this size, we can easily fix that for use in this article. I imagine that either a strong consensus will arise through discussion, or if necessary we can open an RFC using this discussion to pick candidates. — HTGS (talk)09:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
