Talk:Emperor penguin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unsorted comments

These penguins huddle together to stay warm. The way they do this is by each penguin taking turns. They take turns by making themselves warm and then moving out of the way for other penguins. That way, every penguin gets the chance to stay warm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.110.20 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC) David Attenborough first discussed the emporer penguins' breeding habits in specific in Episode 2 (Frozen Worlds) of th 1984 BBC documentary The_Living_Planet. That makes 3 references. Erikswedberg (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do they travel so far inland to raise their young? -Drue 17:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding from watching March_of_the_Penguins is that they walk all the way to where the ice is the thickest and will not melt with the onset of summer. I remember it being mentioned in the narration that during the summer the ocean is within a few hundred yards of their nesting area. --Chipmunk 03:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it the male or the male and female that have a brood pouch? Penguins love Antarctica

According to "March of the Penguins", both the male and the female have a pouch. The egg will be passed from the female (shortly after it is hatched (laid, surely!) ) to the male (who will incubate it). The chick will then live in the brood pouch of the male until the female returns with food. The chick will then be transfered to the female.

That movie also asserts that Emperor Penguins mate once a season but each year their mate may change, contradicting the "penguins mate for life" notion. Maybe it's just a movie, but I'm curious who is correct. --feitclub July 5, 2005 21:49 (UTC)

The research article "Why do aptenodytes penguins have high divorce rates?" indicates that only a small proportion of emperor penguins return to the same mate as last year. 68.164.110.144

People think that if you want to you can...

There are various vulgarities and such plaguing the article that I am unable to remove via the edit.

Though there's a clear history of the scientific taxonomy of the emperor penguin, what is the origin of its "emperor" nickname? Katiewillingham (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Are the Penguins of Madagascar Emperor Penguins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.10.115 (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Baby penguin image removed

The article originally contained this image from the movie March of the Penguins. I removed it as a copyvio. Using that image to illustrate an article about the movie is fair use but using it in this article is not. — mendel ☎ 04:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lifespan and lifestyle

The March of the Penguins article says that penguins come of breeding age at 5 years old. How long do they live? And what's the annual cycle of the chicks till they turn 5? - Gyan 02:15:57, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

-130==How tall is the Emperor Penguin?==

At the beggining it says "between 1.27 and 1.6m", but in Physical Characteristics it says "adults average 0.75m"

Additionally, www.emperor-penguin.com lists their height as "about 115cm".

1.6m? Likes like close to 5 ft 3 in. Thats taller than my mum! Something is not right, these guys can't grow to be that huge.

There is a diffrence in what the "penguins" on one hand and "emperor penguin" on the other states how tall these creatures are. One states that penguins average at 1.1m and the other 1.3m. I am more inclined to believe 1.1 but am unsure of how large they average

I looked around at sites, and 1.15m is usually what they state as the average height of an emperor penguin -isionous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.59.134 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Penguins start breeding at the age of 7... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azza95 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Frustratingly, penguins' size ranges often do not specify between length (beak to tail) and height. Best ones I've found: length 100–130 cm (39½–51 in) from The Complete Guide to Antarctic Wildlife: Birds and Marine Mammals of the Antarctic Continent and the Southern Ocean (Shirihai 2002), which is consistent with an average length of 45 in (114 cm) given elswhere; and height 80–100 cm (31½–39½ in) from The Encyclopedia of Birds of the World of Animals series (1985), which seems consistent at least with this and seems certainly more agreeable than the 120+ cm claims while standing next to people. Of course, height is an unusual measurement to be taken for birds – not to mention difficult to determine accurately – so unspecified figures in ornithological literature are likely to represent length. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is going to be that Emperor penguins tend to stoop. Their normal pose with beak down is far shorter than stretched with beak up but when tweating/chirping (no idea what the correct word is) they are beak up and stretched to full length. 100-130cm seems about right given this range of posture. Apologies if this is counts as OR but it is a talk page and I have spent alot of time near Emperor Penguins [1] Mtpaley (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

English units

I added English units to various parts of the article. I'm not a big fan of the antiquated system of measurement, but the fact is that a large part of the English-speaking world understands "1 pound" much better than "450 grams." (Besides which: where does the suspiciously non-round "450 grams" number for the egg weight come from? I bet someone read that the egg was a pound and thus translated it into 450 g.)--RattBoy 15:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The majority of the world now uses the metric system, including much of the English speaking world. There are only three holdout countries left on the entire planet: United States of America, Liberia, and Myanmar.[2] Although I am from the United States myself, I have no problem with metric units. I believe your ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emperor_Penguin&action=edit&section=5

Editing Talk:Emperor Penguin (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediasertion that "a large part" of English speakers can't understand what 450 g means, is incorrect. The article also looks awkward with every unit of measure (weight of penguin, height of penguin, etc.) having both kinds of units. =Axlq 16:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Axlq. While most of what he said is true, wouldn't it look more...I don't know, polictly correct with both? Not sure how to say it, but it would just be better with both in my opinion. Not everyone in america knows the metric system. I still don't get it, and I'm 13. =Dragonryth

I'm from the US also and although I know what the metric system is and how it works, and I can visualize how long a cm or a m would be (and I'd rather use them since I have a thing against fractions), I'd have trouble telling you just how "hot" 28 C is, or how "heavy" 76 kg is. I don't think having the English equivalent units there detracts from the article. Though it would be nice if there was some way to incorporate automatic conversion directly into Wikipedia or the article. Where if you clicked on a unit a box would pop up with the conversion. --Chiklit 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Axlq. Also I feel that I should point out that a large percentage of english wikipedia users are non-native english speakers and are completely unfamiliar with English units, Imperial units or United States customary units85.220.23.200 21:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The United States inherited it measurement system from the English, which is why it is referred to as English System of measurement. The English, strangely, converted to the French method of measuring (aka Metric) after they fell from their status of being a World Power. Joe Hepperle (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with Axlq and Chiklit. Rattboy, thanks for adding English Units. Axlq's reference to the 'majority of the world' has no significance here. This is not the 'Majority of The World' Wikipedia site, this is the 'English' Wikipedia site. Axlq derogatorily wrote, '...There are only three holdout countries...' Whoa Whoa Whoa! Let's back up here. Again, the rest of the world has no significance here. This is the English Wikipedia site. And to your sorrow, you'll discover that one of those three 'holdouts' is the country with the Most English Speakers In The Whole Wide World-- The United States Of America. Since the country that has the Mostest, Biggest Amount, Largest, More-Than-Any-Other-Country-In-The-Whole-Wide-World number of English speakers uses English Units of measurement, the English Wikipedia should state measurements in English Units. To only state measurements in Metric would be acting 'politically correct' since only a minority of Elitists in the US advocate for Metric only. In school, more than forty years ago, I was told that the US would be all Metric within ten years. We said 'why?' Teacher said, 'Cause it's easier! And the rest of the world already uses it.' We said, 'We're all for 'easier', but isn't the rest of the world supposed to be following our lead? And why would we scrap our perfectly-good-for-centuries English Units? Can't we have both?' For anybody from outside the United States reading this now, we are taught BOTH the English and the Metric system. And guess what? Nobody died over it. We discovered here in the United States that we can figuratively 'walk and chew gum at the same time' (i.e. we can converse both in English Units and in Metric Units). Most of the few number of people advocating for 'Metric only' here in the US are those at the University level who followed the route of High School-Bachelors-Teaching Assistant/Masters Candidate-Doctoral Candidate- Doctorate/Professor route. Notice something missing there? (Hint: Life in the real world). Anyway--- back in my old school days, the teacher was all befuddled. She continued by saying, 'Well wouldn't it be easier if all we had to do was shift the decimal point when we do calculations? Wouldn't that be easier than using our hodgepodge collection of measurements?' She was real confused when I said, 'Hodgepodge? Don't you realize that some of our measurements are in the binary system?' That really confused her so I shared with her by reciting the binary place values, 1,2,4,8,32,64,128 etc Then I said, '1ounce, 2ounces, 4ounces(gill), 8ounces(cup), 16 ounces(pint), 32 ounces(quart), 64 ounces(half gallon), 128 ounces(gallon).' She quit arguing and never used the word 'hodgepodge' again. Now, Axlq, when you came back as your sock-puppet ( 85.220.23.200 ) to agree with yourself you made an additional claim that, '...a large percentage of english wikipedia users are non-native english speakers and are completely unfamiliar with English units...' Even though that claim doesn't pass the smell test, the extreme left side of the Wikipedia page is for folks in that category. They could click Here, Here, Here, or any of the many other 'language' versions listed on the left side. Finally, to User Chiklit, on your user page you claim you can speak seven (7) different languages. That is remarkable and very praiseworthy. What an accomplishment! But how can you claim that you can juggle around the vocabularies of seven different languages (and use them!!), but yet you can't remember, '...how 'hot' 28 C is, or how 'heavy' 76 kg is...'? Ending note, just as Hong Kong was able to juggle English language and Chinese language side-by-side and became the immensely successful business and trade center that it was, we here in the US are able to deal with both the English Units and the Metric Units. But the English Units are our 'first language' so to speak. And did I mention that the Country that has the MOST English speaker in the Whole Wide World uses English Units of measure primarily? And did I mention that this is the English Wikipedia site? Joe Hepperle (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We generally give both metric and imperial on these sorts of articles, so there is no fuss. Interesting duration of thread. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Having both values of measure (in the two systems) helps us learn. Yes, it is useful to have both. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Breeding Site

Is there a single breeding site for the whole Emperor Penguin population every year, or many?

Their breeding site is a called a rookery.

That's what I wondered - in fact it's why I came to the wikipedia article. From the narration of the film it would seem there's only one, but as there are supposed to be between 150,000-200,000 breeding pairs (and nowhere near that many in the film) I'm guessing there are many sites. sheridan 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The linked Emperor Penguin website says "Over forty colonies are known, ranging in size from less than 200 pairs in the Dion Islands to over 50,000 pairs on Coulman Island." Perhaps this fact should be reflected somewhere in the article.--RattBoy 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU

The MotP DVD has extra features including a "making of" (which features a couple of French film crew on the ice for most of a year, filming the penguins near the Dumont d'Urville permanent research station) and a National Geographic "Critter Camera" feature on filming diving penguins near the US McMurdo research station. The two locations are about 1000 miles (1600km for RattBoy) apart. It's not clear if the underwater footage in the main MotP film is from the French or the NatGeog teams - I'd suspect the latter, because 2 people is a small team for filming underwater in the tropics, let alone on Antarctic pack ice.

I added a "see also" for the features on the DVD - but as noted below, there are probably ink-on-paper articles from the same source which would be better citations.

---

Antarctic breeding

"It is the only penguin that breeds during the winter in Antarctica." What about the King Penguin? GrahamBould 12:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. According to our article at King Penguin, it lives (and presumably breeds) on subantarctic islands and temperate islands. I can't find anywhere where we currently list the subantarctic islands, or otherwise define what makes an island subantarctic rather than antarctic, but I think the point the article is making is that only the Emperor Penguin winters and breeds on mainland Antarctica, and it may well be that no other penguin breeds anywhere in Antarctica, mainland or not. Mind you, the sea ice shelf is only land of any sort by a fairly loose definition.

Some clarification would be good of many points here. Andrewa 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica is defined as the land mass and islands south of 60 degrees south. King Penguins do not breed in Antarctica according to this definition; their main breeding grounds are the various sub-Antarctic Islands, the largest of which is South Georgia. There is no universally accepted definition of the term sub-Antarctic; it is somewhat subjective, and depends to some extent on the local climate and perceptions in the nations that have sovereignty over these islands. For example, New Zealand regards the Antipodes Islands as sub-Antarctic; they are actually further from the South Pole than Great Britain is from the North Pole, and no-one calls us sub-Arctic! --APRCooper (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Diving behavior

The information on the diving behavior appears to come from one of the National Geographic's additional features on the March of the Penguins DVD. It's under the title of "Crittercam: Emperor Penguin". Probably there was a ink-on-paper article based on the same work. 83.104.55.73 21:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed cite needed

After some difficulty finding it, I've removed a citation needed tag from the following paragraph:

These penguins can dive 150 to 250 meters (490-820 feet) into the Southern Ocean. They can venture deeper, the deepest diving on record being 565 m (1870 ft). The longest they can hold their breath when underwater is 20 minutes. Their swimming speed is 6 km to 9 km per hour (4-6 mph), but they can achieve up to 19 km per hour (12 mph) in short bursts. One of their feeding strategies is to dive to about 50 meters, where they can easily spot sub-ice fish Pagothenia borchgrevinki swimming against the under surface of the sea-ice, which they then catch, dive again and repeat the sequence about half a dozen times before surfacing to breathe.

This information is supported by the Crittercam short included with the March of the Penguins DVD, which was already listed under Further reading.

If anyone wants to make it a specific citation, feel free. But it would be a bit out of place IMO. Most of the information in the article doesn't have explicit references at this level. Some articles in Wikipedia do have an explicit reference for every factoid, and I think it looks appalling! Most do not. Other encyclopedias do not. But anway, that's a citation if anyone wants to include it, and the justification for removing the cite needed tag. It removes this excellent article from Category:Articles with unsourced statements, where it was a bit out of place. Andrewa 20:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Taller than 2ft.

4ft is what they really are.

-G

No way are they that tall, more like 1m which is only 3ft. Where did this height come from? Mtpaley 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They average about 3-4ft. tall as a mature adult (Rivolier) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.crawford714 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Breeding temperature.

This is obviously an error, but I don't know which temperature is correct...

In March or April, the penguins start courtship,where they go to court and get married when the temperature can be as low as -40 °C (-40 °F) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luv tomato (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Not a mistake. -40 C = -40 F. -39 C = -38.2 F and -41 C = -41.8 F. But at -40 they are exactly the same. Taltamir 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

very good infomation #1 Site Wikipedia!!!

The Encarta Encyclopedia states that the emperors incubate their eggs at temperatures that reach -60 C. Isn't that more important, if we want to emphasize the extreme conditions they face. Nazroon 05:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't want to emphasize anything; we want to display information witjout stressing anything. But something like -40° to -60° would be acceptable and worth mentioning.91.15.235.254 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is a bit vague. Is it the temperature at which the penguins actually mate or the temperature at which they incubate over winter? I don't know about the former but they certainly go well below -40C in winter while incubating eggs, look up any coastal antarctic station and you will see winter temperatures below -50C. Mtpaley (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Change in Conservation status?

I just read this article, and i think its no longer "least concern", although im not sure what it is now, is it EN for endangered? http://www.enn.com/net.html?id=2035

Polygon 18:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservation update

Yeah, I was just wondering why the conservation status was changed

back to what it was before? I 'fixed' it before I registered officially, and I checked my sources. I even left a link where it was supposed to be. Why was it changed back?

BuffaloWilder 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Emperor Penguin collab for Jan/Feb 2008 with 3 votes

Nominated November 7, 2007;

Support:

1. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Corvus coronoides _talk 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a very well-known bird species, so quite a few people will read this article's page. It has a fascinating life history and has been documented in a few movies (something called March of the Penguins). This would be the first Antartic species collaborated on and (if it passes) could be the first Antartic GA/FA. Highly interesting, well-known bird and it is a penguin. What more could it be? Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Can't face passerine yet, and this one doesn't occur in Oz (: Jimfbleak (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aawwww...Australian Antarctic Territory :) ?

An interesting image for the collaboration; [3], the website has lots of US gov PD images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating itself

The article currently repeats itself about the huddling to keep warm, mentioned in both behavio(u)r and breeding. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The only solution is to change one of the mentions to say that they don't huddle to keep warm. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just been adding some info. There was a large amount of material all over the place which I have begun wading through. We'll get there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-review comments

1. taxobox isn't pink in my browser

   (Me either, and neither is King Penguin)

2. "coloured" but "gray" whose side are you on (: ?

   (OK, I'll make an executive decision..................English English)

3. Description - First sentence of is too long. The description refers to juvenile as singular, but chicks as plural, best to be consistent and do all in singular - also "males and females" could be singular

   (duly split. Have I got all the plurals?)

4. "These dark feathers" - what dark feathers?

   (reworded that whole bit fo flow)

5. "Survival rate" reads as if it applies to the feathers which are the topic of the previous sentence, and I'm unclear why survival rate is description anyway

   (I thought we generally stuck it in description...I'll clarify and we can figure out where to put it later)

6. Vocalization - starts "as they" who? drifts between sing and plural again "Its calls are known for using " = "Its calls use"

   (duly singulised)

7. Adaptation to cold - 40m/s needs us conversion, I'm afraid, is "furthermore" adding anything, still sing/pl wandering

   (duly converted and singulised)

8. Behavior - but "behaviour" in text, also "defense" - you ozzies are so confused (: Its swimming speed - previous sentence referred to those males

   (singulised and britishised - feel free to britishise any words I have missed)

9. Diet - appears to be the silverfish searching for prey?

   (reworded)

10. Predators - does the skua walk very slowly, or is it perhaps a migrant?

    (reworded)

11. It appears to read as if it is the shell rather than the egg which is a fraction of the mother's body weight

    (swapped sentences to remove amibguity)

12. Further reading, could be alphabetical, don't like starting with (1997)

    (I am not fond of Further Reading sections and have removed it for the time being. I am not sure which ones expand beyod the scope of the article)

There are some minor things, such as spacing around ref numbers, and I've fixed a few obvious bits. Generally needs a careful read through to check for consistency and logical flow from one sentence to the next. I've not checked references yet, and I'll give the whole thing a second read through when you are ready. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a copyedit, not finished yet, so you might want to check through before I return later. edit summary Jimfbleak (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The study of penguin foraging behaviour was revolutionized in 1971, when American Gerry Kooyman published research having attached automatic dive recording devices to Emperor Penguins. Reads oddly to me

(yeah, I am having trouble with that one - see waht you think now and feel free to tweak)

1. ref 4 Should the year be linked? also sci name is italicised on web page

(Pesky ref that. Finally found it.)

1. refs: inconsistent page numbering esp for ranges (p, pp or none) see refs 10, 13,18 for example

(up till now, I had been using p's and pp's in book refs, and no p's for pages in journals. I figured the book refs, especially the ibid-type ones looked a little bare without them. Erm....do you think it still scans ok if all the p's are removed?)

1. refs: inconsistent use of language icons, eg refs 8, 44, also why (English) for ref 4?

(not me - removed...ok, 3 french refs have french icons, English should have none)

1. "external links", "further reading" need to be either alphabetical, or made clearer why not
2. I assume the author really is Robisson? (just checking that it's not a typo)

(Yep. Patrice Robisson is French it looks like)

1. I really don't like the pdf link in ref 10, why not format normally so that title links to webpage

(there isn't a normal webpage, it is a scanned extract from the book in pdf format. I am not sure how we can make it another sort of link with what is available)

I can't see anything else, so I'll leave you to do the necessary Jimfbleak (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know there has been a change in Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Color, pink is gone! Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Final tweaks: intro talked about colonies of up to a 1000, actually much bigger. the three fr icon needed spaces before rest of ref. Fixed pdf link in ref 10, easy to get url using "bypass pdf download" in the Firefox pdf download add-on (or have I overlooked something here?) I've fixed these, so let's do it!

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK...towards FAC

Right then. input here what everyone feels is required. I took out some cultural refs which I couldn't ref and may be unable to. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There were a lot of prose/copyright issues with this, and I think it still needs a careful read through, perhaps by a third person - just now I saw a couple of very minor formatting errors. There seem to be surprisingly few journals cited that have a url link, it's a pity if they do not have a usable web presence, but if they don't, they don't. I've no idea what more is needed in terms of content, my world penguin list consists of one species. Are they likely to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the planned by the likely increase in krill fishing? Jimfbleak (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note to self -need to expand on San Diego breeding and exhibits...also if anywhere else...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you can't find the second captive site for them. [4] says that it isn't in the US. I'll also finish the copyedit tonight (EST). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Zurich Zoo had them in 2001 [5] Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More evidence!!! [6] Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually some of the photos look like King Penguins, and others list them as such. Need a definitive answer on this...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This from the official site says that they are Kings. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) OK, I may have figured it out. This came out a few months after the reference you got saying that they are kept at 2 places. It lists the two as SW- San Diego and SW- Ohio. Since Ohio closed, all of its penguins were moved to other SeaWorlds. I think that the Ohio birds were moved to San Diego, thus leading to the other reference I found saying that San Diego was the only place with them in the US. There are quite a few Kings that people misidentified as Emperors, however. Do you think this is plausible? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, browsing through the news articles it appeared as if King Penguins at Edinburgh Zoo, Zurich Zoo and possibly Tokyo Zoo have been mislabelled as Emperors, however teh last may actually have both. Will be good to remember for King Penguin though...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has improved greatly since I did the GA review, and I think it's nearly ready for a shot at FA. The second half of the long opening paragraph of "description" is a string of short sentences, and very choppy, could do with rolling up a bit. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Was waiting for RcS and anyone else to have a look and I think I'll nom in the next 24-48 hrs. Feel free to tweak....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just went through and gave it a copyedit. Casliber, make sure that you go through and check that I didn't change the meaning of any sentences. There were a few, most notably Description para. 2 sent. 3, that I wasn't sure about. Also, I added a cite needed tag in the only paragraph without a ref, Behavior's third about swimming speeds. The zoo situation needs to be sorted out as well. Other than that, I think it looks really really good and definately FAable. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there is the minor problem that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the bird is flightless :) Also, wouldn't you logically think that there would be a slight difference in degrees F between 37.6 C and 38 C (Adaption to cold 2nd para). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed temp manually, dumped useless convert function Jimfbleak (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

also, still have text sandwiched between two pictures, won't do for FA Jimfbleak (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated guys...flightless (ROFL)....meaning looks not to be altered. Will get ref and trim images. thx for input. easy fixes apart from zoo headache Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Update:which chick image do I cull?

What do we think guys? Keep the upper one with adults and chicks for size comparison, or ditch it and use the one from further down the article with the two images? I slightly prefer the top one but appreciate different POV Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep the top one, the double image is awful; the image of the chicks from McMurdo (actually at seaworld!) has clearly been poorly edited to remove the background and the line drawing isn't of fabulous quality either. is a much better close up of a chick at any rate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sabine and much prefer the pic above to either of the doubled image. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ref 54 has sci name non-italic - is that correct? Jimfbleak (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, should be italicized.

Note to self to ref later [7]. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate zoo tycoon...

Every time I try to google search words including Emperor Penguin exhibit and Zoo, all these Zoo tycoon pages pop up ......Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do an advanced search, and exclude any results that have the word tycoon in it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

disambig

basal needs a disambig Randomblue (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shyamal (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

suggested edits

Hi.

I would like to suggest a bit of a change to this excellent article, the change leading to a clearer understanding by the reader of evolution as a process that is the explanation of how living things currently are, rather than as a goal-oriented process.

(Biologists know what they really mean when they use the words "to" and "for" as shortcuts, and have been using these words for years, but the general public may not be cognizant of the fact that, indeed they are just shortcuts that assume knowledge of evolution. And it looks like the majority of the population do have a misconceived notion of evolution as a goal-oriented process. So lets be more precise in our language to try to improve the general public's understanding of the process of evolution by its results)

The 1st change would be to substitute "for" with "enabling"; for example "with a streamlined body and wings stiffened and flattened into flippers for(sic) a marine lifestyle" be changed to "with a streamlined body and wings stiffened and flattened into flippers, enabling a marine lifestyle".

The other change: using wording that again more precisely reflects the understanding the process of evolution in replacing "to" with better terminology:

from "It has several adaptations to facilitate this" to "It has several adaptations that facilitate this"

from "haemoglobin to allow it to function" to "haemoglobin that allows it to function"

from "solid bones to reduce barotrauma" to "solid bones that reduce barotrauma"

from "Like all penguin species, it has a streamlined body to minimise drag while swimming" to "Like all penguin species, it has a streamlined body that minimises drag while swimming"

from "The tongue is equipped with rear-facing barbs to prevent prey from escaping" to "The tongue is equipped with rear-facing barbs that prevent prey from escaping"

from "and before old feathers are lost, to help reduce heat loss" to "and before old feathers are lost, which reduces heat loss"

And slightly different: from "It uses a complex set of calls that are critical to individual recognition between parents, offspring, and mates" to "a complex set of calls by an individual is recognized by its parents, offspring, and mates" - this change presents the facts to a reader, from which a logical thinker would come this conclusion on his/her own, rather than reading a conclusion from "authority." Individual conclusion from the evidence, instead of being told from an "authority" what that "authority" concludes.

As you can conclude from this missive, I want the processes and results of science to be presented in such clarity that creationists have as little to twist as possible.

Eddiethecat (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting suggestions. I'll see what some other folks think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about this, and while I support edits that make it clear that evolution is not goal orientated (beyond survival) I am not sure that the word "to" with regard to function implies that. For example, to say that feathers evolved to keep a bird warms possibly implies design, I am not so sure that saying "it has feathers to keep it warm" does anthing other than denote function in a similar fashion to "which". Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Those changes sound good, would it be worth going a bit further to include something along the lines of (for example) "individuals with rear-facing spines on the tongue were better able to trap prey, thus allowing greater breeding success"? It's clunky but it's slightly more precise. The changes are subtle but seem like a minor but important nuance. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely oppose that suggestion. We don't need to spell out the principal of natural selection every time. (And I'm saying that as a postgraduate student of bird evolution!) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The suggestions are interesting but perhaps it will still not avoid teleological mis-interpretation, however it may still be a good idea to use a few "thats" to break the monotony of "to" usages. Shyamal (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I like the idea not so much because it puts it in an evolutionary perspective (not that I mind that) but rather, because it's tighter, more accurate language. it strikes me as a better writing style, more compatible with NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful to avoid OR and mis-quoting. I can see the problem, being the use of goal oriented language by those who do not subscribe to a goal oriented process, but if that is what they say it is difficult to change the language and avoid criticism. Of course, find a RS that states that this is simply a linguistic convenience and and you could drop that into an info box without having to trawl through making many many changes. There is also the minority of creationist (both biblical and ID) biologists to consider. When they use goal oriented language, that's how they mean it.203.25.140.98 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Oops. wasn't logged in. LowKey (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove "torrid" from cultural references and substitute "frigid" - Antarctica is anything but torrid (Brazil is torrid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.231.18 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

project

I have a project and I need some information about penguins I need to no what they eat there water shelter and light so I chose the Emperor penguins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.71.224 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambig from the musical duo

Nevermind. Mbroderick271 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh finally!

I always enjoy it when a non-video game article makes it to featured status. It's a breath of fresh air! Thanks Raul!Jackass110 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistancy

There is an inconsistancy between the lead and the description. Lead states weight between 22 to 37 kg (48 to 82 lb), description states 22 to 45 kg (50–100 lb). The only source easily searchable states an average weight of 45 kg. Makes one wonder how this made it as a featured article. Arzel (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not unheard for two sources to have slight differences in weight (or any other) ranges. What is your easily searched source? I'm not thrilled with the sources cited here, so I shall go check the reliable HANZAB and report back. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The second source states an average weight of 45kg (99lbs). After double checking the first is easier than I thought. It states 22-37kg. That is a pretty big discrepency. I changed them to include the whole range of 22-45 and also corrected the kg->lbs conversions which were not consistant or correct between the two sections. Arzel (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a more reliable source than one that claims the average weight is the high 45 k. HANZAB had good info but didn't give the ranges, just the means. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Williams monograph has a table citing Emperor Penguin weights, - males on arrival to colony - 2 means measured of 36.7 kg (range 35-40), and 38.2, males at hatching, means 24.7 (r=21.9-27.7) and 22.8, and range of 27-28 kg at chick rearing. Females on arrival to colony - 2 means measured of 28.4 kg (range 28-32), and 29.5, females at end of egg-laying, mean 22.4 (r=20.2-24.0), and c.32 kg at hatching, and c. 24 kg at chick rearing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Other penguin species

Do Emperor penguins mingle at all with other penguin species? Do they try to drive them away when seen, as competitors and threats to the chicks? (The answer might belong in the section at the end that mentions Happy Feet, as the plot involves different penguin species ... having adventures and stuff.) Tempshill (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Birds rarely have adventures. Considering their colonies are miles inland it is unlikely any other penguins enter their colonies, and although I have heard of isolated Emperors wandering through colonies of Aedelies I doubt there is much in the way of regular interactions. So no, there isn't much to discuss. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They certainly mix with the occasional Adelie penguin but in my experience they completely ignore each other (based on observations at Halley Research Station). Mtpaley (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The recent BBC three-parter on pengs showed footage of an Adelie firstly chasing off a petrel from a bunch of Emperor chicks and then apparently shepherding them to the sea, with well-placed pecks. Most odd. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Captivity

Hello, I work on the french wikipedia. Does somebody know where is the second place where the Emperor penguin is kept on captivity. Ben23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.126.99 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Did some research because of my interest in the lost Emperor in New Zealand (nicknamed Happy Feet) Looks like there are now 3 other sites, The Nagoya Aquarium and Adventureland both in Japan and also the Laohutan Ocean Park in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.23.152 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that should say Adventure World in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.23.152 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Decompression sickness

In the section "Adaptations to pressure and low oxygen", we can read: However, it is unknown how the species avoids the effects of nitrogen-induced decompression sickness.

Effects of nitrogen-induced decompression sickness afflicts scuba divers, but, decompression sickness in a animal making pulmonar dives? I think is rare in human no scuba dives, and I never heard about decompression sickness in mammals or birds, included those who submerge to big depths. --Furado (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that statement is quite misleading. It seems to say that Emperor Penguins should get decompression sickness, while, like Furado metions, little is known about how it's possible to even get decompression sickness without breading underwater...--Sebastien.Hubert (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Maximum diving time

In the lead and in the body, we say that the penguin can hold its breath for up to 18 minutes. We have a cite to back it up. In a picture caption, we say 20 minutes. We have a different cite to back it up. I favor eliminating the assertion in the caption as the 18-minute source is more detailed and explained. As an aside, the film March of the Penguins said 15 minutes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 November 2011

Please remove "His trip is slightly shorter than it was originally, because the melting of ice in the summer gradually decreases the distance between the breeding site and the open sea". The males commence making these trips in early August, before the onset of spring. According to David Attenborough's 'Frozen Planet', currently being broadcast by the BBC, the distance from the breeding colony to the edge of the ice doubles between the time that the male and female penguins first journey to the breeding site to commence breeding, and the time that the females first return following the hatching of the offspring. The male's trip back to the sea follows the female's return; his trip is therefore significantly longer than it was originally. If the sentence is to remain, a confirmed citation needs to be included to corroborate it, given the contradictions it introduces into the article. However, the sentence is ambiguous, as it could alternatively be referring to the male's return trip to the breeding site following his first trip to the sea to after a winter spent incubating an egg. In this instance, the sentence remains inappropriate, as the males do not undertake only one trip per breeding season and most of those trips are not in the summer. Perhaps "His return trips are slightly shorter than his outgoing journeys." would be better, if this is the intended meaning, but requires a citation.

Re: nprice (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2011:

Early August in Antarctica is not "well-after [sic] spring is over"; in the southern hemisphere the winter solstice is on or near 21st June, and the spring equinox is on or near 23rd September, early August falling mid-way between these dates.

Whether or not the source we refer to is considered citable, it is likely to be accurate.

The statement is both ambiguous and misleading, as it implies firstly that the male's trips between the breeding grounds and the sea take place in the summer, whereas most of them do not, and secondly that the male's return to the sea is shorter than his original trip inland, when the opposite is the case. These implications are contradicted by other sources, including the remainder of the article and the wildlife documentary we have referred to. Given the apparent inaccuracy of the statement, marking the sentence as 'citation needed' is probably not sufficient; the sentence should be removed, or edited as suggested, including a 'citation needed' tag specifically for the modified and shortened version, to improve the accuracy of the article. Tssk1000 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done:You've got your own contradictions, August is well-after spring is over, for one. Second of all, we cannot cite David Attenborough's 'Frozen Planet' in an encyclopedia. Without a citable source that contradicts the statement, I've just added a "citation needed" tag for now. Other editors may feel free to change this if they see so fit. nprice (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question for NPrice: Why is Frozen Planet not a legitimate source? It's a nature documentary produced by the BBC, which seems like it would be sufficiently accurate barring evidence to the contrary. I mean, yes, we have to take care with a documentary, to differentiate between what the documentary is saying in a neutral voice compared to when it is merely quoting an individual, but that doesn't seem to be the situation here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Statement in a featured article had {{citation needed}}. →Στc. 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture: Emperor Penguin swimming in the Melbourne Aquarium

Behaviour > Emperor Penguin swimming in the Melbourne Aquarium. This penguin is a King Penguin. Please remove the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edy12 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Include Wikinews

• {{wikinews|Antarctic emperor penguin population approximated from space}} or
• {{wikinews|Shorts: April 14, 2012#Antarctic emperor penguin population approximated from space}}

99.181.137.3 (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First visit to an emperor penguin colony of 9,000

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/no-one-had-ever-seen-this-colony-of-9000-penguins-until-last-month-here-are-the-first-pictures/ — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Nice pictures.

Additional cultural reference

The UK's BBC have just broadcast a 3 part TV documentary, "Penguins - Spy in the Huddle" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01460gm). Please can someone with more wiki-fu add/format it :-) 109.156.123.207 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2013

I would just like to add the wingspan to the description. Thepenguino (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable - please provide a reliable source and specify exactly what text you would like added to the article, and that should be no problem. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

I've rewritten the numbers section of the article mainly based on this 2012 paper (which caught my attention at work today). It was cited before, but tacked on at the end in a very confusing fashion that suggested it reported a decline (which it doesn't). In doing so, I've removed some of the specific population counts for various locations, as these were often a couple of decades old and may no longer be accurate. This leaves the last paragraph - vaguely talking about a Woods Hole study - hanging without a cite; any idea where this came from?

It'd be good to have something on the Cape Crozier population counts - it grew several times over between the Scott expedition and the middle of the century - but I can't immediately find a source for it. I'll see if I can dig up this. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found a cite for the WHOI paper, but it seems very specific - it's a projection for a specific colony and I think we're overstating it by claiming it shows the species being "pushed to the brink of extinction". Perhaps merge into something discussing fluctuating numbers at specific sites? Some of them had big changes in the 80s as well... Andrew Gray (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wienecke goes into less detail than I'd hoped, but it's filled in some interesting details. Back to the journals! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem sentence in lead

"The Emperor Penguin is perhaps best known for the sequence of journeys adults make each year in order to mate and to feed their offspring"

I think this is an absurd claim. The word "perhaps" indicates that even whoever wrote it was not really convinced it could be true. I strongly doubt that it is the one single thing that most people would know about the emperor penguin, and there is absolutely no way to verify such a claim even if someone did believe it was true. You can avoid all of these problems by simply stating the facts objectively - for example, "Adult emperor penguins make a sequence of journeys each year in order to mate and feed their offspring". 201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How about someone makes this change, then? 201.215.187.159 (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Three weeks have passed and the change is still not made. Why not? 201.215.187.159 (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Current configuration seems in line with other related articles and with WikiProject guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 07:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Emperor Penguin → Emperor penguin – By far the most common way to refer to this bird in reliable sources is through sentence case. I am aware of WP:FAUNA saying that bird names should not follow sentence case; however, doing so would violate WP:RS, WP:AT and other policies. Check out this ngram. The blue line? That's sentence case. The red line is ALSO sentence case, just at the beginning of a sentence. The yellowish line is Title Case and is clearly not the one most used by reliable sources. So let's follow their lead and not capitalize the animal. I'm aware that this is a featured article, but that hasn't stopped other featured articles in the past from being moved (see Giant otter, Gray wolf, and probably others.) Again, the WP:GUIDELINE says that we need to capitalize all birds, but that's absolutely not what they are commonly or authoritatively called. Guidelines have exceptions and are subject to consensus. What do you think should be done here? Red Slash 09:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support and move the rest of the birds while we're at it. WP:FAUNA contains a blatant lie regarding the birds issue, suggesting title-case capitalization for birds is "a non-controversial standard." In fact, there has been tremendous controversy over this practice. It's quite ironic that that statement links to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which reads, in part, "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." And that's precisely what has happened in this case. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support – I've noticed that Wikipedia capitalizes common names of species. It should be in sentence case. --Article editor (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Building on the ngram evidence above, a Google Books search for "emperor penguin is" (designed to capture mainly sentence uses) only has 2 title case results in the first 50, by my count. Likewise, a Google Scholar search returns title case results in just 6 of the first 50. Wikipedia generally follows the sources, and should do so here, especially when WP's policies support it. Dohn joe (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per bird project guidelines, this cannot be done. All common names of bird species are capitalised on Wikipedia, per conventions in ornithological literature. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It's pointless moving one article and leaving 10,000 (including 100+ FAs) fully capped. If it's suggested that all bird articles are lower cased (as happens roughly annually), this talk page isn't the right place for the discussion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a well-established and widely-used convention. Maias (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support – Wikipedia is not bound by "bird project guidelines"; this most certainly can—and should—be done. If that means lowercasing all 10,000 ornithological articles then so be it. The official Wikipedia policy on this issue is quite succinct and clear-cut: all non-proper-nouns should be lowercased, period. I don't know or particularly care why the bird project chose to ignore this policy, but they were wrong to do so, and we can start correcting that today by fixing this article. It may cause its naming to become inconsistent with 10k other bird articles, but it will bring it in line with the other few million articles, which is a big net gain on the consistency front. --Xiaphias (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should, you know, do some research on the matter? This is a convention in ornithological literature, therefore the project follows it. Look at the main page of the project and read the arguments. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And if we were discussing ornithological literature I would defer to your expertise, but since Wikipedia is clearly not ornithological literature I'm not sure why you bothered to mention this.--Xiaphias (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose We have had this argument over and over. Convention from the scientific ornithological secondary sources should take precedence over WP internal convention. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We are, after all, an IOC publication. Hey, wait... --BDD (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't start chipping away at the standard, if it is so critical to the existence of Wikipedia that all species names conform to an arbitrary capitalization standard, then argue that at the appropriate forum, get the standard over turned, then get a bot to do the changes. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The standard need not be overturned, it is already in place and it indicates that lowercase should be used for for this title. See WP:LOWERCASE.--Xiaphias (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

?? Maybe I was a little confusing as I was talking about the Bird-name standard and the sentence-case standard. Obviously the bird-name standard (used in thousands of bird articles) is the one I am objecting to being overturned. I concede that it is possible to compromise by accepting the arbitary sentence-case for the article name (but would need a capitalised version as a redirect anyway) and retain the capitalised format within the article, but that would satisfy no one. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unlike all other organisms and like astronomical objects, birds have determined Proper Names. Wikipedia reflects this usage. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so no other plant or animal research organization maintains a list of "proper" names? Birds are really that special? --BDD (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not that they are "special", it is that that is how this has played out. No other group has had this happen with proper names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Can you shed some light on why dictionaries and other encyclopedias erroneously use lowercase for bird names? --Xiaphias (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See here and the spelling rules here - essentially this is a group of top ornithologists from all over the world discussing names. This does not happen with any other group of organisms. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not this one article. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason given to decap this bird which doesn't equally apply to hundreds of others; either we should drop the standard completely or stick with it. (I am completely agnostic on which.) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Andrew Gray says, there's no conceivable reason to single out this one bird. The general question has already been debated ad nauseam; the current guideline reflects the consensus. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not again. Googleritis is not a substitute for solid arguments. Style guides follow convention, not the other way round. Common Bird Names have become Proper Nouns becasue they have been Stanrdardized.69.244.220.253 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I have several ornothological books in front of me right now, as I'm doing research for an article, and all five of them use capitalisation in article headings. Admittedly the newest is from 1991 and the oldest 1975, but I doubt convention has changed since that period. Across the web I've often seen capitalisation in bird articles and I don't see why Wikipedia needs to change its policy. It would require a lot of tedious work to keep a few people happy when the current system is just fine and widely accepted. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 21:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.