Talk:Penguin
Workgroup category or categories | Biology Workgroup, Media Workgroup, Linguistics Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | John Stephenson 02:20, 27 May 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Linguistics separate
As interesting as the uncertain etymology of Penguin is, I don't think that this kind of lengthy etymology belongs in an article about the bird. Citizendium is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. If the word's history is really substantial enough to merit treatment, then an entry for Penguin (word) ought to be created. That's what I'm going to do, for now. Russell Potter 06:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Flying penguins
I think one angle we could have on this article would be to point out that, technically, penguins can fly - through water. Their physiology is different from 'true' flightless birds, in that their wings act as fins rather than appear as vestigial limbs. Also, I believe penguins' ancestors could fly. John Stephenson 20:45, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Images
I thought that since the first paragraphs are quite general, and only mention one species (the emperor penguin), that type should feature first. I have demoted Russell's gentoo to a supporting role (sorry), but it can be moved anywhere once we have more content. John Stephenson 03:17, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
"in popular culture"
John, I apologize for not leaving an explanation. This is a biology article, and in Citizendium -although if there was an individual Penguin who achieved fame- like Balto did- who is mentioned in Dog, we do not mix in images of animals in popular culture - or the significance of penguins in Freudian analysis or any other completely unrelated discussion of the animal. Since the word itself is pertinent, and since your effort was going to be deleted, I suggested including it. We want to encourage participation and I know that I can work with that section "the word Penguin" so that it includes a synthesis of sources. But the whole Wikipedian convention of including every aspect that might be free-associated to "Animal X" in the Animal X article is not the convention at Citizendium. If you want to write that "Popular culture" riff as a separate article that could be in the media workgroup, or some other work group- fine, but I would discuss it with an editor there. Please remove that section one way or the other. It has no place in this Biology workgroup article and that is true of every Biology article on a species or kind of animal (or plant). By the way- you might look at the article Tux :-) Nancy Sculerati 08:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
- Biology Category Check
- General Category Check
- Media Category Check
- Linguistics Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Biology Advanced Articles
- Biology Nonstub Articles
- Biology Internal Articles
- Media Advanced Articles
- Media Nonstub Articles
- Media Internal Articles
- Linguistics Advanced Articles
- Linguistics Nonstub Articles
- Linguistics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Biology Developed Articles
- Media Developed Articles
- Linguistics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Biology Developing Articles
- Media Developing Articles
- Linguistics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Biology Stub Articles
- Media Stub Articles
- Linguistics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Biology External Articles
- Media External Articles
- Linguistics External Articles
- Biology Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Media Underlinked Articles
- Linguistics Underlinked Articles
- Biology Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Media Cleanup
- Linguistics Cleanup