Talk:紅鶴

Explanation needed
Okay, as adults and Wiki contributors, let's stop playing the passive-aggressive game. You have demanded me to give adequate explanations for my removals of content, and I have done my share. Now, as an admin yourself, do explain why such a usage note is necessary while we have labels such as "dated". Do I have to start adding that sort of exposition every time I add the labels "dated", "obsolete"? For what purpose exactly? Are you assuming that readers somehow need clarification because they somehow can't look up for the meanings of labels? If that's the case, what are the purposes of labels and ? And why exactly is the taxonomic name included here? Are glosses somehow becoming out of use and I'm not aware of that? Do explain yourself, because "+restoring content +formatting +refs" is telling me nothing. And I do wish I'm not dealing with a hypocrite who tells people to do what he himself doesn't even do. ばかFumiko￥talk 13:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be totally wrong here, and I hope you don't mind me sharing my opinion, but I think a better place for making arguments against an admins decision to revert your changes may be the Beer Parlour, or Votes. I think Erikr may sense that you are trying to pick a fight with him (whether you are doing this or not, I don't know, but I do know that your language is very strong and could easily be taken as abusive) and where will that get you other than getting your editing privileges suspended, right? Both of you hold very strong opinions and may always be butting heads, so wouldn't it be better to see if you can find other admins who agree with you and then let them hash it out between themselves instead? Now, Just so you know where I stand on this particular topic, I'm inclined to agree with you, but my opinions are not as strong and I think I can understand why Eirikr likes to have additional usage notes, even if I don't fully agree that they are necessary. Some people may need a little bit of redundnancy to help them understand things, or to see the same thing stated in a different way, so I don't mind either way. 馬太阿房 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since 馬太阿房 has left heir opinion, I would like to say that I think I agree with Eirikr on omitting and adding glosses, but don't support redundant usage notes. I agree with 馬太阿房 that the matter should be taken to a community discussion page, where multiple editors can discuss what a Japanese entry should look like. —suzukaze (t・c) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and my opinion about taxanomic names is this: If they help to narrow down a particular species that the Japanese word specifically refers to, I am all for including the taxanomic name along with a common English name. For example, if 川蝉 was defined in wiktionary as "a common kingfisher" but I know there are many species of kingfisher, I would wonder if this was a general term used for any kingfisher species or does it refer to a specific species of kingfisher that is common in Japan?  Even if it gave a more descriptive common name (e.g. "Giant Japanese Flying Squirrel"), I'd still want to see the genus and species names as it is possible for there to be many common names used to refer to the same animal and hard to say which is most common but that isn't the case with genus and species. 馬太阿房 (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)