Talk:Seabird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Seabird is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 2, 2007.
WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Seabird 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
To-do list for Seabird: edit · history · watch · refresh
Priority 1 (top) 
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] removed some families

Gaviiformes (North America, Eurasia; 4 species)

Podicipediformes (Worldwide; 20 species)

I have removed these from the list of seabird families. In research today the loons and grebes are treated as waterbirds, not seabirds, and the anhinga is only marine over a tiny portion of its range. The sheathbill is usually treated as a wader/shorebird. I am using the Schreiber & Burger 2002 as a guide in this respect, and if anyone feels strongly about this then let me know. Sabine's Sunbird 00:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This is a really good article. I think that it is FA-quality already.Some P. Erson 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protect this page from edits (today alone)

I've seen a lot of vandalism today on this page as it's featured on the Main Page. Why don't we protect this page from anonymous edits? Mugunth 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Generally front page articles are not protected - they should attract, hopefully, edits that drawpeople into the project. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great article

This is a great article and should be protected from vandalism, anonymous edits, etc.

[edit] Semantics of "Marine" environment

The first line of this article reads "Seabirds are birds that have adapted to life in the marine environment." Clicking on the "marine" link, I find the first line there: "Marine biology is the scientific study of the plants, animals and other organisms that live in the ocean." So is there another word that can be used in the seabirds article? Or is someone suggesting that seabirds "live in the ocean"? Applejuicefool 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

+ I agree. It should say " adapted to exploit the marine environment. In fact, I'll change it now. I'm no scientist, but I would say that it mkes sense. Tourskin.

    • 'sigh' This is why I study biology, not English. Really, the senetence was fine as it was. They are part of the marine ecosystem, and their biology and evolution was driven by the challanges posed by the ocean. In what sense are they not marine? That they don't fit exactly wikipedia's first line defentition of marine means nothing (and scroll further down and you see that the article on Marine Biology does have birds included) - this is biology, exceptions are the rule. So why change a cleare senetence into a convoluted unclear one? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I do study English, but I don't know a whole lot about the scope of the word "marine" in a technical sense. I was just pointing out the discrepancy. I do notice further down in the seabird article that many of these birds do swim and dive, but even that doesn't seem to constitute living in the ocean. Perhaps seabird isn't the article that needs changing but marine biology. Or perhaps a simple "Seabirds are birds that have adapted to life in or near marine environments" would suffice, given penguins and auks.Applejuicefool 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If you were to use the word sea you would say that they were adapted to a life at sea, rather than in it. But in the context of the marine environment, with regards to birds, you wouldn't say that they aren't marine because some travel over it, anymore than you would describe a hawk as not being in the praire because it flies over it. With regards to birds, the ocean environment refers not only to the water but the air above it. You may as well question calling seals and sea lions marine mammals because they haul out on land to breed and sunbathe. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


What if we left the line as it was originally, but simply point the link on marine to marine (ocean) rather than marine biology? I know marine (ocean) is a stub, but I think it more accurately reflects the meaning of the word "marine" in the context of the sentence. And it doesn't point to a page which leads people to believe seabirds spend all their time swimming and diving. We could add a link to marine biology from the marine (ocean) page. Applejuicefool 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made this change. Applejuicefool 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note, they do NOT live in a marine environment. They merely exploit the ecosystem of a marine environment.Tourskin.

I would say that some birds (penguins, auks) actually live in marine environments (although they don't spend all their time there). Others, like gulls, etc., exploit the marine environment as you point out. Applejuicefool 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong - Penguins like all sea birds only go to the sea to hunt. They don't live there as a human lives in a house, or a bird lives in the trees. Pardon the bluntness. So I'm changing it back because no sea bird lives in the sea. A large amount of time is spent by Penguin chickc and parents waiting for their partners / parents to bring in food. Tourskin.

First off, the line did not say they live in the sea, it said they are adapted to the marine environment. So to say that the line is wrong for reasons that it doesn't actually say is fatuous to put it mildly.
Second, seabirds are also evolved for the arial environment, and to a lesser degree terrestrial environments, however what separates them from most other birds is their adaptions to life at sea. What makes them seabirds is, in essence, their ability to spend long periods of time in and over the sea. Most species can spend days, weeks or even years at sea. Only gannets and cormoranst have to return to land to roost. The rest live on the sea. They have adaptions to life at sea.
Third, the line originally read Seabirds are birds that have adapted to life in the marine environment not in a marine environment
Fourth - your statement Penguins like all sea birds only go to the sea to hunt. They don't live there as a human lives in a house, or a bird lives in the trees. Penguins only come to land to breed, rather than going to sea only to hunt. Birds do not live in trees the same way that humans live in houses, in fact, to describe seabirds or any other bird as 'living' somewhere in the same way as you describe humans doing so is flat out wrong. Seabirds don't live anywhere, they breed in colonies and feed at sea.
The statement Seabirds are birds that have adapted to life in the marine environment. is accurate. They have adaptions to feeding at sea (either on top of it or in it). It does not claim they live there excusilvely, in fact a few lines down it makes it explicitly clear that they breed on colonies, like seals and sea lions do. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
They have not adapted to life in the sea. AT the sea, is a good arguement. Besides, the fact that birds don't live any where (which is not the point) proves that they don't live in the sea. Tourskin.

Well I think the time has come - I think we should get people to start voting as to whether the first sentence should be "adapted to life in a marine environment" or "adapted to exploit a marine environment". So can someone initiate this? Tourskin 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was OK as it was, and "adapted to exploit" is redundant. (Does adaptation ever not "exploit"?) –Outriggr § 02:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. This is certainly not worth the arguement. I just thought it was inaccurate. Tourskin

The phrase 'adapted to life in a marine environment' is not great. But mostly because it's stuffy, not because 'marine' means 'exclusively in/on saltwater' or anything like that. English marine is a straight borrowing of Latin marinus, adjective from mare 'sea', so it means 'having to do with the sea'. To my mind (and American Heritage agrees), that's the only requirement for something to be 'marine'. It doesn't have to be all-saltwater, all the time. On the other hand, 'within the marine environment' does sound like they live underwater. 'Adapted to exploit the marine environment' has the correct meaning, but the stuffiness problem is even worse. I propose: 'Seabirds are birds that are adapted to life on and near the sea.' If you just can't stand that, now's your chance to holler. eritain 08:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not that I can't stand it, I just don't think that sounds like it implies they live underwater , and the new phrasing seems to exclude the possibility that they do go into the sea, which many of them do, for months on end. Quite frankly, life 'at sea' sounds better than the wishy washy 'on or near'. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I never used the words on or near. I said that they exploit (use) the environment. No bird goes into the sea for "months on end" by the way. They may travel out to the sea, where they may dive into the water for most of the time, but the fact that have to resurface suggests that they do not live in the sea. Say for example: there is a man on a distant Pacifican Island. Being a Human, he lives on Land. However, being a great swimmer has allowed this man to catch fish, and I have seen documentaries with fish in the hands and teeth. Does that mean that they live in the marine environment? Is there a difference between a man who lives on a Pacific Island catching fish and a bird living on the cliff catching fish? No. Tourskin 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
'On or near' was a reference to what Eritain said, not you. As for life in the sea, we're arguing over each other in a tedious fashion here... penguins do live in the sea for months on end (with pretty much just their heads out of the water) they are in it and don't fly (obviously!) or come onto shore) - although what I meant to say is that many of them live for moths at sea. Mea culpa, but none the less, you appear to be under the misimpression that seabirds are tied to the land and return to it once they have finished feeding (or at least you are arguing as if it is), something that a few seabirds are but many aren't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
not tied to land any more than humans are - humans can live in the sea in submarines. Granted there are some birds that do live for many months at the sea. But are sure that most do? I did not know that. Well that sea gull picture doesn't help, lol. I thought that most were "tied to land" as you would have it. I'll take your word for it that most do not simply return to feed. Though if most sea birds acted like sea gulls and puffins, then it would be better not to say live in so much as live at the sea. Tourskin 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't like 'on or near' either, and you (Sabine's Sunbird) put your finger on the reason. But answer me some questions about the language of biologists, insomuch as I am a linguist and you are a biologist:

  • Would a fellow biologist understand 'adapted to life in a marine environment' correctly as meaning 'adapted to life over, upon, near, and/or sometimes in saltwater, which is more than being merely able to go there'?
  • If not, what wording does a biologist use to state that?
(Note that all of this stuff is clarified in the article, and that therefore we don't need to state every detail and qualification right in the first sentence.)
  • If so, is there any reason not to introduce the general public to the way biologists talk?
  • If there is such a reason, what ever might it be?
  • If there is not, I recommend we change the first sentence right back to what it was before. Unless it has other problems in its language, according to the common usage of biologists, in which case I'm counting on you to bring them up.

I think your answers to these questions will quite settle my own doubts. Thanks. eritain 06:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask a few people and I'll get back to you on that. Please bear in mind that biologist like to argue as much as we do (it bothers me massively that an argument over one wretched line is now almost as long as the wretched article) and that no more than five lines down from the line the intro flat out states They feed both at the ocean's surface and below it, and even feed on each other. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A an academic discussion should always be longer than the information debated. It makes sense. What really made this stand out is that it was the first line or first few lines of the article. So when people see the main page and read that sea birds live in water, they might look at wikipedia with an eyebrow raised.Tourskin 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fantastic Article

Truly deserving of FA status. It's a pleasure to stumble across articles of this quality – really interesting and informative. The pictures are also fantastic. Lh'owon 08:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The rime

Instead of the Cross the Albatross/About my neck was hung. I can't see how this becomes a carving, unless there's some bowdlerised version of the poem. Also killing is somewhat more accurate than harming. Jimfbleak 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)