Talk:Common ostrich

Requested move 15 September 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Common ostrich → Ostrich – I think Common ostrich should be moved to Ostrich because it already redirects here and seems to be the primary use although other animals called ostriches are not common ostriches. Christiancardenas732 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Flooded  with them hundreds  14:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I assume it redirects as it is the primary ostrich topic someone will be searching for, however, calling this article by that name will enlarge the scope of the article to talk about all species of ostrich, which this article should not be doing. --Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the concept of 'ostrich' surely includes the Somali ostrich, and 'ostrich' isn't used much to refer to the common species to the exclusion of others. It might make sense to move Struthio to ostrich or create a separate article for the three (two extant) ostrich species. &mdash;innotata 00:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, Ostrich redirects here. Per common name and common sense the topic is "ostrich". If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's an ostrich. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. There's no reason why this move should increase the scope of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think 'ostrich' means the common ostrich to the exclusion of the Somali ostrich? I would argue the term encompasses both species (plus the extinct species). I think making ostrich a new, separate article would make sense instead. &mdash;innotata 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't look at me, I've got my head in the sand. Like an everyday common kind of common ostrich. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Somebody fix the nonsensical lead already. It says that the "common ostrich (Struthio camelus) is either of two species", which makes no sense. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, and I'm ready to make the ostrich page too. &mdash;innotata 18:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving common ostrich; support 's alternate suggestion of moving Struthio to Ostrich. This way, Ostrich can be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article covering both species without excluding any. This is the solution used at, for instance Gorilla and Orangutan, which are broad concept articles on the genus with coverage of and links to the species articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a little hesitation over whether to call all the extinct species in Struthio ostriches, but that was my original inclination, and I definitely think there should be a broad concept article. Gorillas and orangutans are good analogies, since for some time they were each classified as a single species, which is now acknowledged as mistaken. &mdash;innotata 22:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know they were classified at one time as a single species. Kind of unobservant of the classifiers. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though I would suggest that maybe ostrich should redirect to the family rather than the genus? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That might make sense. &mdash;innotata 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, support 's alternative suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 September 2018 (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.

Speed
can run for a long time at a speed of 55 km/h (34 mph) or even up to about 70 km/h (43 mph) -- yes, both have sources, but either one is correct or the other. Which is it? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have clarified that the higher speed is for short bursts (the other is for periods like 30 minutes).Elroch (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Variety of English
Until a few weeks ago, the article had used some mixed American and British English spelling, with, as far as I can tell, American spelling being more dominant. With this edit: by, about twenty instances of words ending in -ize were changed to -ise. I would like to propose that this be reverted, and the article be updated to use American spelling consistently.

The explanation given for the change was: "This is not an American species." According to MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other." Unless a subject "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", as described in MOS:TIES, articles may be written in any variety. The common Ostrich is found across large regions of Africa, and doesn't have strong ties to any particular British-English-speaking nation, so this isn't a valid reason to establish or change the variety of English used in the article.

According to MOS:RETAIN:

Although the word "behaviour" was present in the article early on, it was still a stub:. The first post-stub revision clearly established American spelling with the use of "color", "fertilized", "organization", etc.:. Therefore I propose retaining American spelling in accordance with MOS:RETAIN, and changing any remaining British spelling in accordance with MOS:CONSISTENCY. --IamNotU (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - my 'native' English variant is British, but I support this firstly because of the excellent rationale above and secondly because I find indiscriminate mass changes to English variants contrary to MOS:RETAIN extremely irritating (especially as part of a behavioural 'pattern'). See... I used 'behavioural', yet I still support... -- Begoon 14:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I reverted the change. I also changed a few other things I found, hopefully it's consistent now. --IamNotU (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've only just seen this strange change based on a single !vote. You have decided to Americanise the spelling on the spurious basis that there is no connection to BE. The species really doesn't occur in the wild in the US, but its range includes many English-speaking countries, all of which use BE. These include the core countries of South Africa, Botswana and Namibia, but also Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana amongst several others. I'm prepared to assume good faith here, and ask you to revert to BE, or if you don't want to do it yourself, let me know and I'll fix it. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:IamNotU just repinging, made a mistake in ping above Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  05:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if it helps (and even if it doesn't), I don't particularly care which version of spelling is decided on, so long as one is decided on, and we can prevent people swooping in and arbitrarily changing it. I care more about consistency and stability than which variety is used. I just hope the poor bird isn't tugged in half in the process by jingoistic language squabbles which arose long after it did. . Incidentally, I think, these days, lots of -ize/-ise variants are commonly used and accepted interchangeably in both ENGVARs, but that's a hunch and memory of looking a few up, not deep research. -- Begoon 06:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , thanks. You are right about -ise/-ize, but gray, color and behavior are not used in African English. I'm sorry that you think it's jingoistic to request that the article be written in the variety of English used in the countries where it occurs rather than US English. I suspect that if I rewrote bald eagle in BE, it's just possible one or two Americans might be equally jingoistic <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  15:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'm sure they would. Perhaps jingoistic was too emotive a term, but as I say, to me, stability and consistency are more important. I was schooled educated in an English grammar school, and sometimes shudder at what is done to the language I love and grew up with, but I recognize recognise that wikipedia is an international project and prefer stability where it can be achieved. Again, as I say, I don't particularly care which version of spelling is decided on, so long as one is decided on, and we can prevent people swooping in and arbitrarily changing it. I doubt the ostriches care much, either... -- Begoon 15:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for the comments., I also don't have strong feelings about the use of one variety or another in general, but find "indiscriminate mass changes to English variants contrary to MOS:RETAIN" to be irritating. It does seem to have been part of a behavioral pattern of the editor whom I reverted, who has received numerous complaints on their talk page (see also MOS:VAR). That includes one from about this particular article, and also on their own talk page here:.
 * , I'm sorry you found my edits strange, I'd hoped that I'd made the policy-based reasons for them clear. I do understand your points about the varieties of English used in Africa. However, I believe that the current guidelines don't support establishing the variety of this article on that basis. I should note that I was not making a proposal to change the article from one established variety to another. I intended to revert two recent undiscussed bold edits that appeared to conflict with the guidelines, and after that, to make the existing AE spelling consistent, in accordance with the "first post-stub revision" rule. I don't believe any !votes were required for that, but I decided to open a discussion about it anyway.
 * As noted above, this edit: changed about twenty instances of "-ize" endings to "-ise". As far as I know, there's no basis in any policy to change this established usage without consensus, as "-ize" is acceptable in both AE and BE (Oxford spelling) articles. That edit has been reverted, and a couple of remaining "-ise" endings changed to match. I don't think there's any question about that, is there?
 * The second recent edit by the same editor that was reverted was this:, which "de-Americanized" gray to grey, and color to colour. At that point the article had contained mixed spelling, so it did need to be made consistent with one or the other. But which? The question of whether a particular variety should be chosen based on a connection to the article's subject is determined by . The test is not whether "there is no connection to BE", but whether it is a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, a more stringent requirement. The examples given are of articles about cities, military, citizens, or events, that clearly belong to specific countries. I firmly believe that MOS:TIES does not support the position that all articles about "things found in Africa" should be written in BE, and that it does not empower editors to go around changing established usage on that basis.
 * Although editors may change the variety by consensus, at the moment I'm not inclined to support such a consensus for BE for that reason; I think it would be a dangerous precedent. I believe that the ostrich, or any other random thing that exists generally in Africa, doesn't have sufficiently strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation to justify it, that Africa as a whole can't be considered an "English-speaking nation", it is debatable whether English is a primary language anywhere in Africa, and even the countries within it, such as Ethiopia, don't necessarily use BE. When MOS:TIES doesn't apply unambiguously, or editors don't agree, then MOS:RETAIN says that when discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety, which in this case is AE, in 2004.
 * Relevant discussion can be found at:, , etc. If there is still any question about whether MOS:TIES mandates that all articles about "things found in Africa" be written in or changed to BE, we could open a new discussion there, but I'm fairly certain what the outcome would be.
 * Thanks again for the comments, and for considering my response, I hope it's reasonably clear. --IamNotU (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I've just finished changing back to a relevant spelling variety before I saw this (I checked here before I started). I've kept the -ize endings, but I can't understand how you can justify using AE spelling rather than the spelling used in all the countries in its range. It's close to insulting to African English speakers to suggest that American English is more suitable to write about a bird that occurs in their countries that the spelling they use <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  14:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC) IamNotU, I forgot to ping, apologies <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  14:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On your argument I would be justified in changing red-breasted nuthatch or most other North American birds/mammals etc to BE, since they are not tied to one country, and the fact that Canada and the US have similar spelling is, according to you, irrelevant. But of course, the US has special status, so AFAIK, there isn't a single article for any animal or plant that occurs only in North America that isn't written in the spelling favoured by the US. <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  14:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , the justification is the very first sentence of : The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other. Editors are free to write an article in whichever variety of English they prefer, and I agree with that. Unless there are clear strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, there is in general no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. I think the guidelines are quite clear, including the "tie-breaker" rule when editors disagree, to use the first post-stub variety, in order to avoid protracted disputes. I don't see that it's an insult to Africans to write an encyclopedia article in AE about something found in Africa, and I don't think that there really is any such thing as a standard "African English" - as I mentioned, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc., often use AE spelling - but in any case, the requirements of MOS:TIES are not met, and there is no consensus to use BE in this article.
 * The red-breasted nuthatch article is written in Canadian English, with "grey" and "colour", and was from the beginning. So no, you wouldn't be justified in changing it to BE. Nor would anyone be justified in changing it - or any other article about a general North American subject - unilaterally to AE. If you want to write a new article about a North American bird in BE, you can. If you did so, then MOS:TIES couldn't be used to justify changing it to either American or Canadian English - any change would require discussion and consensus.
 * I'm a little surprised that you went ahead with that edit without waiting for my answer. According to MOS:VAR, Edit-warring over style is never acceptable, so I'll ask you to revert it yourself. If you disagree that the tie-breaker rule applies here, and want to pursue this further, perhaps with a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or through some form of dispute resolution, I'm open to that. --IamNotU (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd waited long enough, clearly not. I'm not prepared to grit my teeth and have what is essentially an African article written in the spelling of a country where it doesn't occur. Why am I not surprised that it apparently has to be in AE? If you revert me I'll leave this little bit of the US-in-Africa as it is, so no edit war. <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , ok, I'll do the revert. I'm not completely unsympathetic to what you've said, but there are other things to take into consideration too, and given the situation with the other editor, sticking to the guidelines seems to make the most sense here. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * چرم شترمرغ.jpg

Arsinoe II statue
The reference linked to the comment about the statue of Arsinoe II doesn't appear to mention her likeness riding an ostrich anywhere in the text -- it just describes a statue of her head. Is the ostrich statue mentioned elsewhere in the journal? 73.241.224.141 (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)