Talk:Galapagos hawk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old[edit]

what size isit[—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.172 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that part of the quote may have been attributed in error to Darwin. The source of the confusion seems to be the book Galapagos, a Natural History By Jackson, M. H. (1993) - Page 177 - ( Page views at Google Books - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=TlxzU6i_LV0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s ) Here it can be seen that the statement in which Darwin apparently reports being shadowed for three kilometres by juvenile birds, is actually the statement of Jackson, the author of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.145.189 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus after nearly a month of discussion, and nearly two weeks without new discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]

– Requesting move of all the animal articles using "Galapagos" without diacritics (with the exception of fish here, which could be a bit of a different case; these are also all the articles actually related to the islands except an organisation). The page for the islands has just been moved back to the diacritics (Talk:Galápagos Islands#Requested move), after that page and some of the pages listed here were moved without discussionby. Most articles (e.g., Galápagos tortoise, Galápagos Petrel) use and have used the diacritics; diacritics definitely are very commonly used, if not more so and in more appropriately for the article as argued at the requested move for the islands. It is possible that diacritics are less commonly used for the animal species, but I would expect it to be the opposite, especially for relatively obscure species. —innotata 16:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC) —innotata 16:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move all. Encyclopaedic accuracy is of prime importance. That The National Geographic spells 'Galápagos Islands', Galápagos Tortoise is good enough for me. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Handbook of the Birds of the World and the IOC World Bird List (our standard) both don't. Both are accurate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The IOC says it's neutral on whether diacritics should be used, as I've pointed out before. —innotata 21:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. My point was that neither is "accurate", both are acceptable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all birds. Either usage is correct and widely used, retaining them as they are makes it simpler, plus keeps them in line with other bird names on Wikipedia which (apart from birds named after humans) don't use them. Also, shouldn't it be Galapagos land iguana or Conolophus subcristatus? I'm not sure but I thought only birds capitalised species names. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all birds for now on a case by case basis. The general rule for birds is to use the world list of bird names of the IOC, which is by far the most authoritative list around. National Geographic is not a reliable source for the naming of species, and even less on popular names. The IOC does not use them, but leave it up to regional list composers to decide if they use diacriticals. Although we are not such a regional list, I think we should consider this issue in the wider context of Hawaiian species, New Zealand species like the Kaka and the kakapo that also have special diacriticals. But that is a discussion that should be done at WP:BIRD, not here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they mean lists like the AOU; they also say they're "neutral" as to whether they diacritics be used. I'd say the Hawaiian species and New Zealand birds ara arther different case from geographic names, and the current situation of using them for the Hawaiian birds, but not New Zealand birds reflects usage well. —innotata 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kim: I think that's already been done with no concensus coming out of the discussion...Pvmoutside (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case it looks like forum shopping, and should be snowball closed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd thinking making this move request would be good procedure, since these pages have been moved back and forth, and are inconsistent. Not sure what'll be done if there's not consensus one way or other, but even keeping all the pages as they are now would be better as far as I can see. —innotata 22:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all birds If anything, usage should be towards Anglicisation of foreign words, not away from it. Using diacritics where not blessed by existing custom and usage looks pedantic. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are somewhat widely used—all recent books on Galápagos birds or animals use them, as far as I've seen. —innotata 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all for both accuracy and consistency; if it's Galápagos Islands here, it should be "Galápagos animalname", unless there is a specific reason. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't move any per Wikipedia's Use English policy, none of these should have an accent mark, sense such marks are not used in English. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the policy says. It says diacritics should be used where they reflect common English usage, so at least a very small number of pages must use them, while here it's open to debate. —innotata 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get this "such marks are not used in English" argument. It is so obviously untrue, but I see this argument made all the time. What is the background here? Is it just naïveté? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all requested moves above See my anti-diacritic arguments under Galapagos Islands and Nene (bird) discussions....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all those moves. The Spanish acute is a simple and informative diacritic, as diacritics go. It is very often retained by scholarly and other reliable sources in English. And for consistency, I favour "Galápagos" in all articles that use the term: except in proper names (companies, artistic groups like Galapagos Duck, etc.) that expressly omit it. NoeticaTea? 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If moved It is important that the existing version is retained as a redirect, as most of us do not know that the word has a diacritical on it. I would weakly prefer a keep for that reason. While the Spanish spelling has the diactitical, the common English one does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course redirects from the alternatives should always exist. What I've been saying is that the version with the diacritic is commonly used in English, though it'd probably be hard to say it is more commonly used in general or in the sort of sources we use for names. —innotata 14:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If the IOC is neutral, we should probably be consistent with ourselves to avoid looking silly. Of course, I would like to move them to Galápagos hawk, etc. (lowercase), also for the sake of avoiding looking silly, but that's a different discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flightless or almost flightless?[edit]

Hello, I red the article about the Galapagos Crake and it says it is an almost flightless species, but can someone give more information about that? I mean clarify if it actually "flies",glides, flutters, or flies poorly. I asked the same on Galapagos Crake article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.237.46 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galapagos_hawk&oldid=1202191808"