Talk:Cardinal (bird)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Biology Portal Cardinal (bird) 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae For new cat: Category:Natural history of the Americas, replace "Hummingbird" article (by Some collaboration, hopefully) an artcle: along title LINE of: Hummingbirds--the bird of the Americas

Contents 1 This poor page 2 Diet 3 Mascot 4 Americanization 5 A challenge to spelling partisans

[edit] This poor page

This page has been vandalized again. Please revert to : 12:33, 25 May 2005 Gdrbot m (Nomialbot - update old-style taxobox)

--TaranRampersad 20:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Who would vanalize a page about a bird? --Feb 20, 2006

Vandals of Wikipedia aren't necesarily motivated by anything much different from those who “randomly” damage things in the “real world”. Some pages are attacked simply because “they are there”. —SlamDiego 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diet

The article gives a vague understanding of what cardinals eat. It provides no information on what cardinal parents feed their chicks.

Agreed. Also gives no idea about its habits, and uses an alternate version of its taxonomy that is less accepted than the placement of the three Cardinalis spp. in the Cardinalini tribe of subfamily Emberizinae of the Fringillidae family. It's cobbled together. Another example of the Eurocentric bias of articles on birds (otherwise so often excellent) in Wiki, since the cardinal is one of the most familiar and common birds in North America. It's up to us to improve it, I suppose. NaySay 14:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The above worries me - "its habits" and "the cardinal is one of the most familiar and common birds in North America" suggest you're talking about Northern Cardinal instead of the cardinal family/subfamily - a bit US-centric? jimfbleak 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot

I think we should talk about the cardinal as a popular high school or university mascot and include a list of such institutions. Example: Luverne Senior High School or Wesleyan University 74.106.19.218 03:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find such a list at Northern Cardinal. jimfbleak 06:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americanization

[moved from individual talk page]

I reverted your change to the original spelling of colour as inappropriate. AFAIK, size of the population is not a basis for change. The USA is not the only anglophone country with cardinals, nor is it necessarily the one with the most species of this family.

The reason given wasn't a count of species but the size of the population. —SlamDiego 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For a species largely limited to NAm, like Bald Eagle, I would accept the change, but not in this case.

Which would contradict the argument that you gave above. Moreover, cardinals are birds of North and South America; the nations of the latter are principally Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking nations. The addition of the few Anglophonic nations of South America is not going to significantly shift population weights. —SlamDiego 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many species/families with a distribution across the northern hemisphere - are you suggesting that all of these should be Americanized?

Hardly. Rather, I am suggesting that when the bulk of those that are in Anglophonic nations are in America, then the spelling should be American. —SlamDiego 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of the geographical size, for many of these groups there are bound to be more individuals in the USA/Canada than in the UK/Ireland, but I think you'll have struggle if you extend your new principle to eg ducks, birds of prey or waders. Jimfbleak.talk. 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are simply misapplying the words “extend” and “new”. The principle is not new, and in application to birds would migrated from nations where one spelling prevailed to nations where another prevailed, the principle would be silent. —SlamDiego 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that you have not shown that there is a Wikipedia policy that numbers of individuals justify an Americanisation of spelling. As far as I know it's something you've made up.

No, this is perfectly in keeping with the Wikipedia policy about where to use various English-language conventions. You already gave the matter away in principle with your hypothetical case of bald eagles. Neither cardinals nor bald eagles are limited to the United States, nor even to anglophonic nations; but the bulk of the cardinal population that are in an anglophonic nation are in one in which American spellings prevail. —SlamDiego 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does it not surprise me that that you dismiss the other anglophone nations in the New World as unimportant compared to mighty America?

That's not what I've done, and unless I receive an apology I will file a civility complaint against you. (I'm neither kidding nor bluffing.) —SlamDiego 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to play the numbers game, there are far more British English Anglophone nations in the New World than US-English

Counts of nations are irrelevant. Even populations of people are irrelevant. Actual population of cardinals is what is here relevant. —SlamDiego 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(but of course they're not Americans, so don't matter). Jimfbleak.talk.16:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you will apologize for libel, or I will complain about your incivility. —SlamDiego 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are so confident of your grounds for Americanisation of the spelling, all you have to do is point me to the appropriate policy page, and I will accept that. So far you have chosen not to do that, but have just continued the edit war. The threats and bluster are not a substitute for a verifiable Wikipedia policy. Since you instigated the spelling change it is up to you to justify the "policy" you are using to support the Americanisation. And talking of incivility, what does putting a stop sign on my talk page amount to, as if I was common vandal? Jimfbleak.talk.15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am required by Wikipedia policy on civility to post a warning on your talk page before proceeding with a complaint. Referring to my warnings as “bluster” is further incivility. You have now been reported. You have already conceded that the spelling change would be appropriate for a bird whose range in not confined to Anglophonic nations, and whose range includes nations in which American and non-American English spelling prevail. —SlamDiego 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed the Bald Eagle comment above, according to the article, it is restricted to Canada, USA and Northern Mexico. If that is correct, then it occurs only in US-english anglophone countries. I've certainly not seen it in Trinidad, Tobago or Costa Rica. Jimfbleak.talk.16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada does not use American spellings. —SlamDiego 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to try to get some intervention in this pointless edit war. I hope you see that as a constructive move, since we are getting nowhere with just the two of us. Jimfbleak.talk.16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have seen it as a constructive move had you engaged in it before an incivility report had already been made. Complaint/appeal processes should not be set into rivalry. —SlamDiego 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, I see of no reason even if there are more cardinals in North America to revise the language used to American english. Per the MOS criteria:

1. Cardinals are not native only to regions utilizing american english.
2. "Colour" is not a confusing regional term, as Lorry or Loo might be to residents in North America.
3. Based on neither of the two above criteria being paramount, default should be to the flavor of english first used in the article...which would be the British english spelling.

Regards, as a mighty american :) Syrthiss 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English plainly states

If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.

The policy does not refer to a unique tie; merely to a strong tie. —SlamDiego 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I would equate the strength of the tie to be basically equal for the two regions. I don't really care who has a greater population of cardinals or swallows or egrets: I care that both of you are disrupting this article when its really quite trivial whether the word is spelled color or colour for the subject matter of the article. Syrthiss 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure which you think are the “two” regions. Jimfbleak has been proceeding under the assumption that Canadians also would spell things “color” rather than “colour”. Second, on what basis do you measure equality or inequality, if not population? After all, we certainly have Americans (even native-born Americans) who write “colour”. Third, no user is likely to notice the spelling changes as they are effected, and Jimfbleak and I have in fact taken care not to undo other edits. —SlamDiego 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada and the Caribbean countries have as strong a claim, especially as we are not just talking about Northern Cardinal. In the spirit of compromise, I am happy to leave the article in its present colo(u)rless form, and to apologise unreservedly for comments impugning the motives or integrity of any American editors. Jimfbleak.talk.16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, what is your measure of strength? I stated my measure up front. I am fine with “plumage” but note that the article could run into analogous problems in future as it expands. —SlamDiego 16:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You give no figures to support your assertion that there are more cardinals in the US than elsewhere. Even if you mean Northern Cardinal, Canada ("colour" as you pointed out) is a big country full of Northern Cardinals. If you look at all the other cardinal species I doubt that the US has the majority of any of them and a zero population of many. Either way, without nitpicking about exact numbers, it's clear that that the US has no overriding claim to the family as a whole, or even with Northern Cardinal. Jimfbleak.talk.17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that the United States has most of the world's cardinals; I am claiming that it has most of the cardinals that are in anglophonic nations, which is relevant for the Anglophonic article. In a Portuguese-language article, the appropriate dialect would likewise be Brazilian — not because Portugal does not matter (not being the mighty Brazil), but because Brazil's the Portuguese-speaking nation with the most cardinals. If you'll accept this natural metric, then I'll bother to get you the population estimates; otherwise it's a bit of a goose chase for me (and this article is not on geese). But you, as a birder, should know enough from considerations of habitat. (Cardinals do not migrate, and those in Canada must endure winter as it finds them.) —SlamDiego 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also explicitly note that you still haven't stated your metric. We've got claims of equality here being made without any meaning. —SlamDiego 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Shame, shame, shame! Slamdiego, you have violated the three-revert rule by reverting to the same state of the article four times within 24 hours. By rights I could block you for 24 hours. I will hold off because you did not receive a warning before the fourth edit, and it looks like the edit war has ended for now. I think I could also make a case for blocking you for being disruptive by insisting on a very contorted interpretation of the manual of style on [[national varieties of English. Jimfbleak, you can damn close to violating 3RR. Both of you, edit warring is never good,and solves nothing. It is particularly egregious when the issue is 'national varieties of English'. My philosophy is, never change existing (national varieties of English) spelling, and never revert when someone else does so. I have no sympathy for either of you. -- Donald Albury 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No. One cannot violate that rule without having received a warning. (I will grant that I would not have reverted so many times had I been thinking of the 3RR when I made the fourth reversion, as being in mere technical compliance can still leave one in bad form.) —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, by rights you cannot. —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, you must hold off, or jeopardize your administrative status. —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A case perhaps, but not a decent case. (Below, you assert a policyt which holds the rule itself in contempt.) —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a dubious absolute. —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's simply false. Solutions are defined in terms of problems, which in turn are defined in terms of objectives. —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you object to the very rule that I invoked. No wonder, then, that you insist on seeing its invocation as disruptive, and my intepretation as contorted. In any case, you should recuse yourself from administration where this rule is involved. —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you and I have a mutual lack of sympathy, then. —SlamDiego 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not intersperse your comments in the middle of someone else's post. That makes it hard to follow who said what, and can be seen as rude. You can be blocked for revert warring, whether or not you have technically violated 3RR, and whether or not you have been warned during the current round. What matters is whether you could have been expected to know about the rule. Asserting your right to edit war is a good way to get in trouble in Wikipedia. Your interpretation of the manual of style concerning 'national varieties of English' is indeed contorted. I believe that my actions here are proper, and I will not recuse myself from monitoring the situation here. -- Donald Albury 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry if you find it hard to read interspersed replies, but they have a long tradition on the 'Net, and would not be found rude by those familiar with that tradition.
2. You wouldn't have been able to make the case that I was in knowing violation of the 3RR. (In fact, I wasn't in knowing violation.) And you shouldn't have threatened to engage in what would have been a misuse of you administrative prerogatives.
3. I did not assert a right to edit war. Pointing out that your assertions were fallacious is not the same thing as claiming that no legitimate objections to edit warring can be made. Take care not to again misrepresent what I have said.
4. Baldly asserting that my interpetation is contorted won't make it so. (BTW, if anyone were familiar with myu history of edits, then he or she would know, for example from one of my edits to Liquorice that I will truly try to play by the rules, correcting articles to British spelling where American spelling has mistakenly been used.)
5. The reason that you should recuse yourself from all disputes concerning the rule on national spellings is that you've made plain your distain for the rule, by your objecting both to my attempts to bring the article into conformation and to Jimfbleak's attempts, and by asserting that we should instead ignore the rule in favor of tolerating whichever spelling that we find. (What you should perhaps do is work to change the rule to one more to your satisfaction.)

—SlamDiego 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I've made it clear that I consider squabbling over things like 'color' vs. 'colour' is not something I choose to engage in. I support the guideline, which I believe you have been violating. However, I think that revert warring over such things is one of the silliest bits of behavior that anyone can engage in on Wikipedia. I prefer to use my reverts on vandalism, spamming, personal attacks and similarly blatant abuses of editing priviledges. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right about the silliness of 3RR warnings in such cases, but note that you did something very close to issuing a revert warning when you declared “you have violated the three-revert rule by reverting to the same state of the article four times within 24 hours. By rights I could block you for 24 hours.” Speaking for myself, I would rather see the 3RR significantly modified; I think that it creates sub-optimal Cournot-Nash equilibria. But, exactly as that implies, the rule impels invocation. The silliness is in the system.

In any case, your original statement (“never change existing (national varieties of English) spelling, and never revert when someone else does so.”) is not about the 3RR rule at all; and, if followed by everyone, it would operationalize as utterly discarding the guidelines on which dialect to use where; we would just use first dialect. That would be fine with me if indeed everyone adopted it. —SlamDiego 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing to imply that 3RR warnings are silly. I said quite distinctly that edit warring over spelling changes was silly. Edit warring is always bad, and preventive blocks are appropriate to stop edit warring. Admins may impose an immediate block for violating 3RR. Gaming 3RR (such as making the 4th revert 24 hours and 10 minutes after the first) may also result in a block. Edit warring that does not actually violate 3RR may also result in blocks, although most admins will take the case to ANI rather than unilaterally blocking. In general, reverting more than once is frowned on. ARBCOM has put some edit-warriors on 1RR (no more than one revert on an article in any 24 hour period). I recommend you read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. -- Donald Albury 16:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for at one point misreading your “warring” as “warning”, and thence misattributing a position to you. I do not support edit warring. My earlier point is simply that it accomplishes something for some people. Whether those things should be accomplished is another matter. —SlamDiego 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An understandable misunderstanding. No problem. -- Donald Albury 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A challenge to spelling partisans

A challenge to spelling partisans:

To the Yanks: I challenge you to never revert this article over the spelling of the word color. Think about how it would put them in their place such that they were the only idiots edit warring over how to spell a word? And, to boot, they would be responsible for stupid spellings of words on Wikpedia pages. Also, we have states bigger than their entire dying country. Fuck them.

To the Brits: I challenge you to never rever this article over the spelling of the word colour. Think about how blimey stupid those yanks will feel - like someone shoved a loorie up their bum, when it turns out that they were the only idiots edit warring over how to spell a word? And, to boot, they would be responsible for stupid spellings of words on Wikipedia pages. Also, Keira Knightley vs. Lindsay Lohan. Fuck them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these arguments is that they presume that both sides here are much motived by national chauvinism. I'm not, and I actually haven't seen real evidence that the other side is either. (The fact that I was personally attacked on the presumption that I was motivated by chauvinism does not prove that the attacker was a counter-chauvinists.) —SlamDiego 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What's a loorie? or am I better off not knowing? Jimfbleak.talk.06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A truck? I think I butchered the spelling.Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You meant “lorry”. Actually, the British use for motorized truck is uncommon in America, but here it is used to refer to sorts of wagons and rail cars. —SlamDiego 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that it might have been a typo for "lourie", an unmotorised bird, but that seemed improbable given that this is a South African usage. Mind you, the bird wouldn't be quite so painful. Jimfbleak.talk.06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely a confrontation with a motorized bird would be more awful. —SlamDiego 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who edit wars to change the spelling against established policy must be motivated by something. The idea of "most common spelling" would mean that Wikipedia would default to Indian English, since there are probably more English speakers in the subcontinent than anywhere else in the world. In the case of a family of birds that is found in over a dozen English-speaking countries (all but one of which spell the word "colour"), there's no reason to weight population more than number of countries. In the absence of any overwhelming rationale to associate the family of birds with one country with one system of spelling, changing the stable spelling amounts to a violation of policy on national varieties of English. Guettarda 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)