Template talk:Human-centric

This template was considered for deletion on 2017 January 24. The result of the discussion was "keep".

I think this template won't be needed until dolphins and gorillas can read English and use computer keyboards. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:KATMAKROFAN on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I disagree since everything from Aardvarks to Zebra finches have had tibias for the same time as humans, but there is only one sentence mentioning non-human tibia at that article.--Kev min § 16:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That misinterprets the meaning of human-centric. It is intended to mean that the article exclusively or excessively refers to the subject as a human attribute, while it is shared by other organisms. Claiming to understand that it means the article is written from the point of view of humans and should be written from the point of view of other organisms strikes me as disingenuous. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to clarify[edit]

Also, When placing this tag it may be helpful to open up a discussion on the article's talk page in which you mention specific other animals that should be included. is a bit weak in my opinion. I would prefer to see a requirement to discuss the reason rather than a suggestion. Otherwise it becomes another weapon in the drive-by tag-bomber's arsenal. I am strongly in favour of the tag if clarified, almost as strongly opposed when not clarified. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation of icon[edit]

KATMAKROFAN, you changed the icon with edit summary "Standardize icon". Where is the list of standard icons, or how is this a standard icon? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversion[edit]

Having been reverted by KATMAKROFAN without explanation, I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page. The only thing I have to go off of is "Unexplained change" in your edit summary, but there was an explanation in my edit summary. So why the reversion? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because your wording sounded like something involving furries. KMF (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KATMAKROFAN: That is the standard term used to refer to the concept; see the article Anthropocentrism. Not only would users be more likely to be familiar with the prefix anthropo- outside of the context of furry fandom (such as in the word anthropology), but think we can trust readers to know that we aren't talking about dressing up like animals. Why would we not use the standard term for the concept rather than inventing one?

And you haven't explained on what basis you described the change as "unexplained" as that doesn't seem to be the true basis for your reversion. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocentric is a correct term. Not so sure about human-centric, Google searches suggest it may not be appropriate, or at least may be confusing. I would prefer anthropocentric, which is well defined, has a long history of use in this context, and has nothing inherently to do with "furries". When one is unfamiliar with a word it is often more productive to look it up than to make assumptions. I suggest linking the tag to the page on anthropocentrism to assist those who need to look it up. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anthropocentric → Template:Human-centric – I'd like to request that this template be moved back to {{Human-centric}}— not because that is the best or most correct term, but because it is the one that readers are most likely to understand. I have outlined some of this on the talk page of Philg88 who suggested I make the request here. The summary of that conversation is that "anthropocentric" is likely to go right past most readers. I say this as someone with an undergraduate degree in anthropology. "Human-centric" may not be the most correct term, but I think it stands a much better chance of being understood, and I am not convinced that anyone who sees the term "anthropocentric" and doesn't understand it is going to click on a link to find out what it means, even if they could. I realize this is an argument in favor of a dumbing-down of a template, but I also believe the project is better off if our readers can immediately grasp what a template means. KDS4444 ^(talk) 05:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree. If we are are going to have this template, we might as well have it in language readers can understanding, not the equivalent meaning but more fancy sounding Greek-based equivalent. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.