Talk:Falcon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Falcon is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
synonyms peregrine, peregrine falcon
Wikipedia have this daft policy that only proper names can be capitalised. At least three people have argued that bird species eg American Kestrel are correctly capitalised, but to no avail. The weakness of the Wiki way is, of course, that people who know the "real world" capitalised version use it, and therefore miss any links to related articles. Thus Horned Grebe goes nowhere, but Horned grebe does. jimfbleak 06:00 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
- This is one of the things which redirects are for. Just redirect the "unofficial" capitalization to the "official" one, and everyone's happy. Bryan
It would have helped if the kestrel redirect had been given an explanation here jimfbleak 06:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
does it really matter how you capitalize it no matter how you do it its still saying the same thing
[edit] Eyass
I merged in the content from the Eyass article, and redirected it here. I have no idea if this content is accurate or important, it could be removed if it doesn't belong. --Xyzzyplugh 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reworked article
Ok, I've tried to make it read more like a coherent article rather than a series of dot point that have been added at different times by different people. The info is essentially unchanged (except see below) and I have not checked whether all information is complete (eg whether there are other members of Falconidae) - a job for later.
I reinstated the 1-in-3 egg etymology for tercel/tiercel which I've always considered correct and added a couple of refs. I have a number of books (sadly without on-line equivs) which are in agreement. I listed the other etymology as an alternative. (Actually, if you think about it, tercel=third would make more sense if the male was 1/3 size of female, rather than 1/3 less). I also corrected the spelling of eyas but listed the alternative. A Google search for 'Eyas'[1] returns ~136,000 hits while for eyass[2] only 771. Secret Squïrrel 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- looks much more coherent now, jimfbleak 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Two sections removed - reasoning?
The sections "Symbols and banners" and "Falcons in the arts" have been removed with the comment "Removed sections which belong elsewhere". WP is an encyclopaedia, and as such its articles need to be broadly inclusive without including trivia. These removed sections, especially the latter, seem by any reasonable assessment to be of potential interest, even if not to the editor who removed them. By what reasoning should reference to falcons in the arts be suppressed from the falcon article?
--Yumegusa (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The section "Symbols and banners" was unreferenced, is off-topic and doesn't warrant its own section. The section "Falcons in the arts" was poorly formatted and is again off-topic. It belongs in a different article, for example Kigo. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK re "Symbols and Banners". However, regarding the second section, I am sure you are aware that if a section is poorly formatted, the correct action is to reformat it, not to delete it. You have failed to respond to the core issue. By what criteria is reference to falcons in the arts "off-topic" in the falcon article?
--Yumegusa (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK re "Symbols and Banners". However, regarding the second section, I am sure you are aware that if a section is poorly formatted, the correct action is to reformat it, not to delete it. You have failed to respond to the core issue. By what criteria is reference to falcons in the arts "off-topic" in the falcon article?
-
-
- If formatting and poor citations (see WP:SPS) was the only problem with this then I would have course acted accordingly, however the section is entirely inappropriate for this article. It belongs in an article that deals with poems or kigo not in an article dealing with a species of bird! It is not appropriate to add indiscriminate information into a wikipedia article. Just because a poem has the word falcon in it, doesn't mean this article is the appropriate place for it. I suggest the articles Matsuo_Bashō, Kigo or even better List of kigo would be more suitable for the information. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for the explanation. A couple of comments:
-
-
- I am familiar with WP:WIN, and find nothing therein to support your contention that there is no place for an "X in the arts" section in an article on X. Kindly be more specific.
- As to specifics, we are not talking about a poem that simply "happens to have the word falcon in it"; we are rather dealing with a significant cultural phenomenon wherein the falcon assumes additional meaning and resonance, in a literary tradition stretching back some thousand years. Think Shakespeare rather than limerick. I accept that these matters may be outside your areas of interest and expertise, but that is hardly a valid basis on which to decide to exclude something.
- Thanks for the pointer re citations. I could have cited (non-self-)published books, but chose the website for ease of reader-accessibility.
--Yumegusa (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
