Talk:Unnamed Island, Baird Bay

My recent edit to the accompanying Baird Bay island article

The bureaucratically-designated identification code is not actually a name (nor for that matter, neither is the title of our article necessarily a *name* for anything, other than that article). Nor does my (now conceivably shattered) chunk of Hawaiian black, coarse, and solidified lava, which may instead be still sitting in the Minneapolis suburbs, on the desk that Dad used in his office in the Produce Exchange Building (an actual skyscraper, which IIRC no longer exists as a “real” building) in Manhattan. The now (presumably) nonexistent building still has the same name, perhaps primarily for use in legal documents that pertain to changes in the ownership of the structure, and/or the land it occupied or in historical accounts of events (stock transfers, conspiracies, communications, sexual encounters ...) that took place in specific rooms or hallways, staircases, vaults, or closets thereof. This island is perhaps occasionally called by our article’s title, and by probably the same hierarchical *description* or designation we mention (in many bureaucratic documents), but as Trudy says in a Chicago PD episode, “nobody cares”: You’re Nobody ‘Til Somebody Loves You, and the human obsession with proper names is that the vague terms I and you use merely emotionally and sometimes legally about, and essential to, the fraught and elaborate behaviors characteristic of sufficiently interacting collections of humans. Oh, and especially with such collections who have mutual inhibitions against killing, or getting the F away from, each other. (These are often called groups, societies, and polities.) (I’ve at last noticed that my scope has exceeded the bound of the topic, and will demonstrate the discipline to proceed elsewhere. Thanks for the impetus.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:C201:FD70:6981:AE4C:4365:880 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I intentionally avoided uttering the code in question, which IIRC I took (then, and still take now) as confounding the article title with a a Proper name for anything but the topic. I think my concern is at core this: The article needs a title, and usually one (or at least one) proper name the central subject matter seems uncontroversially appropriate. But in this case, the colleague has chosen a title easily confused with some island bearing a proper name in the paradoxical Neverneverland and Erehwon tradition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:C201:FD70:25CC:D276:BF56:A524 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

“... fox-like animal”

   I summarized as follows:

Minor, except perhaps for rewording the vague 5-character term a ”fox” to the at least falsifiable phrase ‘’apparently fox-like animal” . I consider the former so broad as to cover even undocumented animals ranging from those perceived as nimble relatives of the canine taxa, to hypothetical spirits blamed for random deaths, injuries, or simple clue-free disappearances (individual or multiple) of local fauna.

I don’t intend to disparage the reports themselves, but rather to insist on less ambiguously worded accounts of the animals, and preferably, of the reports involved. I am indisposed from serious attempts to dissect the sources, let alone verify reliability, but I can recognize information too vague to be accepted as reliably sourced, and thus (so to speak) “call BS on” it.

—2601:199:C201:FD70:6981:AE4C:4365:880 (talk) (ex-User:Jerzy, ex-User:JerzyA), 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)