You mean they don't have hooves?
What does ungulate mean?
I liked my entry better. It may have been wrong and unscientific, but I could understand it! :-)))
"Ungulate" is a more precise category that roughly corresponds to "hooved". Yes, this text is a little less colloquial, but when all the links have ends on them, it will be more useful and educational. I don't know if we have a template yet for living things, but we probably should at some point.
You're right, it will be better. But I do think entries should be as useful as possible to nonspecialists, and that means introducing jargon with nonjargon whenever possible. E.g., you could say: "...are hooved animals ( ungulates)..." and that would be a distinct improvement.
Well, it depends on how short a gloss we're talking about. If it's a brief gloss, why not include it? It will help the reader, who can follow the link in order to learn more. It isn't easy to get through an article by "looking up" what one doesn't understand by clicking through to all jargon. Of course, you don't want to reproduce the contents of every related article in any given article; but you do want to explain at least roughly what needs to be explained in order to get through the material at hand without trouble. For another example, see affirming the consequent and its link to conditional.
Snoyes.... how about making this a redirect to GNU and having the wildebeest def on top as a shortie..- 豎眩
Yeah, but that pedantic in this case, since the other "gnu" is just a bite... see chinese... - 豎眩
Why can't Gnu just redirect to Wildebeest, which already has a disambiguation line? If you remove the GPL via the criteria at WP:DAB#Lists, you only have two entries, one of which is (was) already covered at Wildebeest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alph Tech STUART ( talk • contribs) .