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.
As I pointed out in
WikiIsNotPaper, I think links are far better than short glosses when there's something to link to. But in this case I think you may be right that both together work well (mainly because the gloss is very short and nonetheless complete and useful).
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.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)