Talk:Rotating locomotion in living systems

WP:EDITORIAL

It's hard for me to see how this article made it through FAC recently with instances of "however" and "notably" in place. --John (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not all instances of those words are bad. To wit, with respect to the three changes I reverted:

In the lead:

The intent is for the first clause to stand apart and be considered on its own, almost as a separate sentence: rolling animals are themselves a subject of the article, not merely a point of contrast in discussing wheeled locomotion. The semicolon, followed by "however", introduces a greater syntactic separation of the first clause than is accomplished with a comma and a "but".

In the section "Molecular":

ATP synthase may appear in processes other than the two mentioned; they are merely the most notable.

In "Developmental and anatomical constraints":

The "however" plays an important role in establishing the relationship of this sentence to the previous one; without it, the first sentence reads as a non-sequitur.

—swpb^{T go beyond} 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with swpb here; these words usefully shape the meaning, and are by no means necessarily signals for people to switch into auto-gnome mode. Each case needs to be read intelligently and on its merits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and I note your ad hominem attack as such. MoS compliance is a FA requirement, and this article ought not to have been promoted. --John (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No personal attack was intended, and I am very sorry you took it that way. My view is simply that words like "however" can be either useful or harmful. People can, as Mary McCarthy wrote, long before Wikipedia, tell lies using 'and' and 'the' improperly, yet we cannot write without these words. Each case therefore needs to be considered on its merits: no reliable rule (whether stated in the MoS or anywhere else) can be constructed or applied. I disagree in large measure with your interpretations and your opinion of the article but respect every editor's right to their own opinions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, so recommending me to edit more "intelligently" and not in "auto-gnome mode" was not intended as a slight. That's good to know. We are not discussing "and" and "the" here, and as far as I know there is no guidance against using these words. We are not talking about "rules" here but about Manual of Style guidance. You are free, as you point out, to agree or disagree with the guidance, but like it or not, MoS compliance is a FA criterion. --John (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we take this down several notches? I'm very willing to discuss and entertain all manner of changes that people think would improve the article, but let's follow a semblance of process. First, there were many editors involved in reviews in the history of this article, and a very positive FAC, so questioning the promotion seems inflammatory more than productive. Second, you must admit that there is definitely not a hard and fast rule against words like "however" and "notably", but merely guidance that they be used thoughtfully. I believe I've done so, and I'm not alone in that. We can discuss each usage and whether it's useful or not, but there's no need to get bent out of shape about it. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I'll endeavour to discuss "intelligently" with you, even though one user thinks I am handicapped by a tendency to "switch into auto-gnome mode". The reason we don't say "notably" on Wikipedia, as explained rather well at WP:EDITORIAL, is that its literal meaning is zero (of course it is notable; we have noted it after all) but that it will imply that this is an important example, or the most important example of something. If we're giving an example of something, other considerations dictate that we of course give an important example as an example of something, and not an unimportant one. If, on the other hand. it is the most important example of something, that is interesting and if it can be sourced as such, should be stated. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It does, and I think there's a middle ground to be found here. It's misleading to say, as the revised version did, that "ATP synthase is an enzyme used...in photosynthesis and oxidative phosphorylation" without any qualification, because these are not its only appearances. Any of several adverbs can clear this up, it doesn't have to be "notably". It could just as accurately be said that the enzyme is "especially", "mainly", "particularly", or "primarily" used in those two processes. —swpb^{T go beyond} 22:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Primarily" works for me, if it can be justified by the sources. --John (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe it can, but I do not have the editing wherewithal tonight to trace that to source in a subject (organic chem) outside my familiarity. For now, I'll just drop everything after the last comma – ATP synthase has its own article for a reason. —swpb^{T go beyond} 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

John, can you point to where the MoS indicates that the use of "however" is not compliant. The only instance of "however" I can find in the MoS is when it used by the MoS itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The guidance John is using is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. We disagree about its application here, but it does exist. —swpb^{T go beyond} 22:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

But that is only a guideline suggesting the word should not be used if it implies "a relationship where none exists". --Epipelagic (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll get no argument on that from me. —swpb^{T go beyond} 23:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• If we're going to quote it, we should quote it in full: Words used to link two statements such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. In both the cases we are discussing, the second clause of the advice applies. In general the lead sentence of the article is a mess. --John (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Except there clearly is a relationship. The gist of the text is that rotating locomotion does occur in the real world, but it's uncommon when compared the human devices. If you can think of a better way to phrase is, please tell us. HCA (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I did that two days ago and was reverted. "But" for the first one, lose the second one (which is just padding), lose "notably". --John (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that those judgements improve the style. I would retain the first "however" and replace the preceding semicolon with a period – but that is just a personal preference. Can you support your position that "but" is a better word here than "however"? I agree with losing the second "however". The omission of "notably" changes the meaning – perhaps "particularly" could be used instead. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We agreed upthread to replace the "notably" with "primarily" if the sourcing will justify it, and to remove it in the meantime. --John (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The second "however" also serves an important purpose, as I mentioned above: it establishes the relationship of the sentence to the previous one; without it, the first sentence reads as a non-sequitur. It definitely doesn't fall afoul of WP:WORDS, and its removal would be detrimental to understanding. —swpb^{T go beyond} 13:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did mention this above. I couldn't disagree more. Examine the two sentences without the "however": Using human manufacturing processes, wheeled systems of varying complexity have proven fairly simple to construct, and issues of power transmission and friction have proven tractable. It is not clear that the vastly different processes of embryonic development are suited to—or even capable of—producing a functioning wheel, for reasons described below. We have "processes... processes" to scaffold the connection between the two sentences, which is more than adequate. --John (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

​​​​​​​ As we're at an obvious impasse, I'm pinging the other editors with the most familiarity with the article, those who reviewed it in peer review and at FAC. To those editors: I deeply appreciated your inputs there, and I would appreciate them here, even if they don't agree with me. Edit: the "notably" is gone; the "however"s are what's still at issue. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

it looks like this argument’s about grammar, and using a semicolon before a “however” or a “but” is grammatically correct. It’s basically a fancy period that doesn’t end a thought, it’s used to more effectively connect two independent clauses. Also, the word “however” is fine, it’s a less complex way of saying “contrary to this” or “on the other hand this guy says...” and it’s a nice way of indicating to the audience that the former text and the following text are going to contradict each other. You don’t really *need* notably but it seems fine too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

But alas, sources such as the Oxford dictionary just don't agree with you about the importance of the semicolon. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As someone who participated in the FAC, and indeed mentored the article towards its candidature, I can't help feeling that this is something of a storm in a teacup – small differences of opinion being magnified to points of principle, umbrage being taken, etc. I don't consider "however" to be a pariah term when used thoughtfully, although clearly others set the bar on thoughtfulness higher than others. I don't think that the requirement to change any of the original text is absolute, but in the light of the various comments I would: (a) keep the first "however" or change it to "but", it matters not; (b) replace "notably", subject to the caveats expressed; (c) accept John's argument re the second "however" – in my view its retention adds so marginally to the text that it's not worth fighting for. Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I, too, took part in the FAC and supported the article's promotion. I think it is fine as is, but I would be fine with the compromise suggested above by Brian. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, adding my 2c - comparing these for the record, agree with losing the "notably" - I find the "but" a tad strong for the sentence, think "(al)though" is a bit softer and less jarring. And can keep or lose the 2nd "however". I concede that I speed-read, so can miss things, which is why I often qualify my support as pending consensus of others supporting. I do use "however" frequently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Legged vehicles

I think the statement "in an example of biologically inspired engineering, legged vehicles find use in the logging industry, where they allow access to terrain too challenging for wheeled vehicles to navigate" might be better replaced by "in an example of biologically inspired engineering, legged vehicles might find use in the logging industry, where they could allow access to terrain too challenging for wheeled vehicles to navigate" - anyone disagree? Brownturkey (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not correct. It's not "might" or "could" – these legged harvesters have been built and used. —swpb^{T go beyond} 20:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Are they in widespread use? My impression from reading our (very poor) article on them is that they are not, which backs up Brownturkey's point. --John (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

toys have wheels to roll around with

Opinions please. Read the edit summaries I and the person who reverted me made. [1] Just like today there are toys for children that put wheels on them so the kids can roll them around or pull them on a string, that doesn't mean anyone thought they were real. Dream Focus 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for following BRD. The article discusses, among other things, wheeled creatures is "in fiction and legend"; the toy represents a fictional creature. No one needs to have thought it was real for it to belong here, just like all the other fictional and legendary creatures discussed. It is a particularly significant example of the topic, perhaps the most significant in the article, because of its earliness and its appearance in a culture not otherwise known to use wheels at all. No concern with this example was raised in the featured article review process. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not a fictional creature. Its is clearly a dog, which just had wheels attached to roll it around. Dream Focus 19:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Are these fictional creatures? [2] Google image search for "toy dog with wheels" and you get ample results. Putting wheels on a toy does not make it a fictional creature. Dream Focus 19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest a third way. I think the inclusion of the wheeled toys is important, but I don't think they belong where they are, namely in "in fiction & legend" and as the first photo in the article. IMHO, the importance of the toys is showing the limitations of wheels in natural terrains by demonstrating that cultures which were fully aware of wheels did not use them in vehicles. As such, I would propose keeping both the text and image and moving them to the end of the "Disadvantages of wheels" section. For a first image, I'd see if there's a good image of a tumbleweed or bacterial flagella, given the title of the page. HCA (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wheel trouble

If animals evolved wheels, they'd crash into things all the time, dummies. Imagine them trying to have sex, with wheels. The friction would cause them to roll down hills, accelerate, and crash. 2601:98A:400:82F8:B163:B1F6:AA30:F824 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The old image with the dog and wheels was better

With the old image I immediately knew what concept this article was about--the occurrence of wheels (or more formally, freely rotating structure) in organisms. But now there is a picture with an armadillo girdled lizard that, while admittedly illustrates a living organism in a circular shape, does not readily inform me what the article is about. This article isn't about living things putting themselves in a round shape to travel. It's about the development and rarity of freely rotating structures in living systems.99.41.162.159 (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (as primary editor). Although the article covers both rolling and free rotation, the latter is, I think, more interesting to most readers. And as it's not known to occur naturally, the only possible illustration of a macroscopic wheeled creature is necessarily an imagined one – a fact which, I think, also serves as an interesting lead-in to the topic. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Civilizations which abandoned the wheel

I'm surprised this is not linked anywhere or mentioned again in the article, as it seems something both relevant and fascinating. Were there really civilizations that used the wheel and then stopped doing so? Rrh02 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned and sourced - see the second paragraph of the section "Rolling resistance". —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 20:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is absolute garbage, why is it a featured article?

You know, Wikipedia should be embarrassed to have a truly awful article identified as a "featured article".

This article is titled "Rotating locomotion in living systems". However, that subject is barely discussed in the article, and is only a side topic in this article. Instead, the real premise of this a discussion on the absence of wheels in nature.

One wonders why there's a Wikipedia article on the absence of wheels in nature. Indeed, the article seems more like one person's (likely a child) wondering aloud why wheels don't exist in nature. While the lead makes an attempt to justify this subject being published on Wikipedia under the false premise of the given title, it's painfully clumsy. The lead makes the unsubstantiated claim that human technology imitates natural structures, and from this seems to find it necessary to therefore question why wheels are absent in nature. This premise, however, is woefully fallacious. If anything, the question should become why wheels are present in human technology. But even then, that question is hardly worth asking, as there are plenty of examples of human technology that don't imitate natural phenomena (even if we assume the claim that human technology largely imitates nature is true).

The article needs to be substantially reworked to focus on actual existing phenomena, i.e. rotational means of locomotion found in living systems, and to eliminate all of the off topic content about why wheels don't exist in nature. IF there is some need for a Wikipedia article that wonders about the absence of wheels in nature (and it's really hard to understand how such an article could be worth the electrons expended), then it should be a separate article dedicated to that subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:b078:6c00:ccb:b72f:5d19:e24b (talk • contribs)

Stop it. People have worked really hard to get this to FA status, and the last thing they need is an IP lashing out on their work. Don't have a WP:POV. If you have an issue with the article, go report that at Talk:Main Page or WP:AN.TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 00:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I share the other IP's objections to the article, but this counter-objection is nonsensical. Wikipedia editors aren't entitled not to have their feelings hurt by criticism of their work; the place to discuss an article is its talk page, not Talk:Main Page or WP:AN; and if the article really is seriously flawed, as the IP argues, then that would mean that 'people's hard work to reach FA status' hasn't focused sufficiently on the right issues - and possibly that the current criteria for reaching FA status are themselves wrong. These things could be true or false, but that can only be established by means of discussion, not by people keeping quiet because of editors' feelings.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, looking through the article, I definitely don't agree with the IP that the article is worthless. The questions the article asks are interesting and the answers are informative. And it does have a lot of information on actually existing rotating locomotion in nature; it may or may not be true that there should be even more such information, but it certainly isn't true that the other things shouldn't be there.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Those people should have done a better job because this page really is garbage. It's written like an essay, it's tone is definitely not encyclopedic. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 04:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, that is a personal attack. Do not insult other editors. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The page is garbage and making appeals to nameless "editors who tried really hard" doesn't change that. It's not personal if I'm not even talking to anyone specifically... MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, calling the article "garbage" serves no constructive purpose. If anything, instead of insulting one editor you insult any and all editors who have worked on the page. If you think there is a problem with the article, then feel free to improve it. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is very strange. It seems to promise one thing and deliver another. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If you find a problem in the article, fix it yourself. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Calling the page garbage does serve a purpose when it was somehow promoted to a FA and presented on the front page. I was responding to the emotional (and inappropriate) response of an editor who took criticism of the page personally (which should never be done, you do not WP:OWN pages); strongly suggesting that an IP user is below someone with a username (they don't need an IP sharing their opinion and questioning the FA status!) and misapplying the WP:POV policy (the IP user is allowed to have a point-of-view on whether the page is garbage or not.) Saying "lots of editors worked hard on it!" isn't an argument as to why a page should be a WP:FA and if you're gonna bring them into this -- well, they should have worked harder because the page surely doesn't reflect it! MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 22:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Calling the page garbage does serve a purpose when it was somehow promoted to a FA and presented on the front page - No, it really doesn't. It's one thing to call a page garbage, which without any evidence is mere name-calling. It's another to actually outline the issues in detail, e.g. pointing out that the article sounds essay-like and giving examples of this. If you think the page is "garbage", there are a few solutions: you could point out the issues on the talk page, or you can open a WP:FAR and explain exactly why you think the article does not meet the FA criteria. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What Epicgenius said. It's one thing to point out specific flaws in the article in order to discuss how to improve it. Calling it garbage is entirely unnecessary.
If you look at the FA nominatiob (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rotating locomotion in living systems/archive1), it was in fact the result mostly of the effort of Swpb, as well as the FA reviewers. It's not okay to attack people's work unconstructively. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Third IP editor here. I don't think the article is garbage. It cites reliable sources and I actually found it quite interesting. Nonetheless, I have to admit that something about it feels unencyclopedic, more like an essay, starting right from the lede section. A few concrete examples: I don't think the hedge of "seem to" is necessary in the second sentence of the lede, given the complete absence of wheels and propellers, and I found the two "addressing the question" parts unusual by the standards of Wikipedia prose. The lower sections feel a bit more encyclopedic. As mentioned below, I think that the content in the article doesn't reflect the title. There's not much focus on the actually existing examples of "rotating locomotion in living systems"; it's mostly about the absence of wheels, again apparent immediately from both paragraphs of the lede section which discuss this almost exclusively. The subsequent sections of the article go into detail about several evolutionary factors against the development of wheels, but provide almost no discussion of the evolutionary factors that led to the development of rolling in animals, except to note that the phenomenon exists. IMO, either the focus is off, or the title should be changed to "absence of wheels in living systems". HTH. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this analysis. The article's content is of very good quality, but sentences like The absence of wheels in nature is frequently attributed to constraints imposed by biology: gives me the impression that the article's title really should be changed (ideally to highlight the presence or absence of wheels in nature). I also agree that certain words/phrases like "seem to" and "however" seem to be beating around the bush, which may be the reason it sounds like an essay. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with what the IP and Epicgenius said. The article does need work and is like an essay, but calling it "garbage" and WP:PAing other editors like Swpb is unacceptable. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Responding as lead contributor) I've responded to suggestions of renaming the article in the section Talk:Rotating locomotion in living systems#Lead image/article title below, and I'd suggest consolidating that discussion there. As for the bits of text that are said to be essay-like, I'll take them in turn:

1. Rhetorical questions: The only guidance I'm aware of on this is WP:RHETORICAL, which 1) is part of an essay and not a guideline, and 2) I believe the use here is in line with what that essay suggests, in that the questions are not asked "in Wikipedia's own voice", but in the voice of a hypothetical reader. To be "unusual by the standards of Wikipedia prose" is not necessarily to be wrong; I think mixing things up style-wise (within the bounds of the MOS) makes articles more engaging. In this case, I think the rhetorical questions give a nice, concise summary of what the following material seeks to explain.
2. "Seem to": In "do not seem to play a significant role in the movement of living things", the "hedge" is vital for two reasons: "do not play a significant role" would be false, both because of flagella (which are limited to bacteria, but as such, are probably present on more individual organisms than not) and because of the possibility of undiscovered examples. In "would seem to demand explanation", the phrase is also important: although the position that an explanation is needed is shared by highly noted experts (Dawkins, Diamond, Gould, etc.) cited throughout, it is, technically, subjective.
3. "However": Despite appearing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, "however" is used properly in both instances in this article: it draws a contrast between two legitimately contrasting statements, in a way that does not suggest any unsupported implications. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 16:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, the exclusion of flagella from the statement is already noted in a parenthetical remark. The possibility of hitherto undiscovered examples may hypothetically remain, but even if there is some beetle species in the Amazon that somehow evolved wheels, I would still say that "[wheels do not] play a significant role in the movement of living things", which is a weaker statement than "wheels do not play any role in the movement of any living things". Another way to overcome that issue would be to use a wording like "no living things are known to use wheels for movement". 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I buy that reasoning. I'll remove "seem to" there. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

'Abandoned by at least one historical civilisation'

'For this reason, rolling resistance led at least one historical civilization to abandon wheels. During the time of the Roman Empire, wheeled chariots were common in the Middle East and North Africa. Yet when the Empire collapsed and its roads fell into disrepair, wheels fell out of favor with the local populations, who turned to camels to transport goods in the sandy desert climate.'

So, which 'historical civilisation' abandoned wheels - the Roman Middle Eastern and North African Civilisation? I don't think that there is such a thing. And you can't claim that the entire Roman Civilisation abandoned wheels. A more accurate wording might possibly be something to the effect that 'rolling resistance caused wheel±s to be abandoned throughout a large area on at least one occasion in history.' 87.126.21.225 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

So noted and revised. Although the abandonment in question took place after the Empire was no longer a relevant power in the region, it's probably fair to say the locals were still largely culturally Roman. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 04:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Looping undular snakes

I thought there was a type or category of snakes such as sidewinders, that were, 'sidewinders'; that is they were capable of an occasionally used technique of making a few loops along their length and moving in sort of a hybrid of rolling, undulation, and slithering, maybe only on certain surfaces or temperatures. B137 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, but in sidewinding, although the head traces out an ellipse, it remains upright while doing so. I believe the "rolling" static local ground contact is akin to someone doing the worm, just with an added transverse component. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 04:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead image/article title

The following discussion took place at Talk:Main Page while this was the TFA:

How about a shark with a propeller?

• The article is about "rotating locomotion in living systems", but the picture does not illustrate that at all. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  The FAC nominator changed it to this image two days ago with this edit. Is there a reason why we should disturb that choice, especially with only three hours to go in the day? Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand the relevance of either image. They represent rotating locomotion in non-living systems that were carved to look like living ones. Doesn't seem any different from fan art to me. Srnec (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  The edit summary says it is to illustrate the concept. Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is what is so weird about this article. It seems to be about a phenomenon in nature—"rotating locomotion in living systems"—and we start with a picture of a toy buffalo with wheels? What is the concept here? Srnec (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  swpb?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I won't be available until after the article is off the main page and without a full discussion, which obviously there hasn't been, I'm going to let the image stand. It's clear enough to me that the idea is to illustrate the idea of a wheeled creature. Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, sorry I've been unavailable for the last few hours. Yes, the idea is to illustrate the idea of a wheeled creature, as well as the fact that that idea has been with us for a very long time. As the article explains, there are no real wheeled creatures that could illustrate the concept, so an imagined one is the next best thing. Per MOS:IMAGES: "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." And again, the long-standing human fascination with the idea is a major topic of the article as well, and an ancient artifact illustrates that beautifully in a way modern "fan art" would not. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 00:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(this edit = this edit)

I am re-posting it here because I think the lead image is still a problem. I do not believe an ancient toy demonstrates that the idea has been with us for a very long time any more than a wooden toy demonstrates that the idea of wooden animals has been with us a long time. The wheels could be purely practical—the only way for the toy animal to move without being touched. I'm starting to think the article should be titled something like "Absence of wheels in nature". Srnec (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The title of this article is "rotating locomotion in living systems", which is an actual phenomenon that exists, as discussed later on in the article, e.g. the pangolin or even the molecular-scale things, and yet it opens with a photo of a toy wheeled buffalo and both the first and second paragraphs of the lede are almost entirely about the absence of wheels. I concur that it seems like this article is mistitled given its focus. The article is not primarily about the existent phenomena of rotating locomotion in living systems; it's about the hypothetical notion of an animal with wheels. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Re the image, you've disregarded the first half of what I wrote. Illustrating human fascination is a bonus; the main purpose is to illustrate the idea of life with wheels, which IMO this image does as well as any possible image could, given the nonexistence of the real thing. As for the title, I'm actually open to renaming, if we allow due deliberation. You're right that the idea of wheeled lifeforms is the main topic, and that the discussion of real rotating locomotion is largely supportive of that. From the beginning, I probably hedged the title because that topic might seem too fanciful to take seriously, but I think the quality of sourcing obviates that concern. "Absence of wheels in nature" isn't bad, but I'd like to think about it a little more and see if there are any other suggestions. Thanks, —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 07:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

R Dawkins in Rotating locomotion in living systems, Evolutionary constraints

He's certainly relevant, but he might need a "better known for other work" tag à la Ted Kaczynski, given his recent bigotries. K Smeltz (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)