Talk:Lyrebird

message: The lyrebird's tail looks like a lyre. Not that you would know it from reading this article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.7.58 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of the musical instrument

message: The Lyrebird painting, by John Gould, of the British Museum specimens is now being used on a non-English version of Wikipedia to show what the lyrebird looks like.  It is unfortunate and misleading that the painting by John Gould has been used to represent the lyrebird in the encyclopedia, instead of a photo of a live lyrebird.  John Gould's painting does have its place, as an historic painting, but it should have been noted that the painting was based on a taxidermy specimen which had been prepared for the British Museum by a taxidermist who had never seen a live lyrebird and only had a dead male lyrebird, with his tail hanging down (i.e. not in courtship display mode), to work on, and that the representation of the tail was unfortunately inaccurate because of the circumstances of neither the taxidermist, nor John Gould (at that time) having ever seen a live lyrebird.
Could somebody please donate a photo of a lyrebird, with tail in courtship display mode, if this is at all possible without using a commercial (copyright) photo.  Thanks.  Figaro 13:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sorry, the licence says explicitly: to illustrate an article discussing the book in question, this article discusses the bird, not about the book and as such it is not allowed. If it is left on, it is a copyright violation, and can be and should be removed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bookcover 

message: I don't know why but when I try to add the google video link ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3433507052114896375 ) my submission drops half the page.  Sorry, if I messed anything up. --12.216.218.194 03:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google video 

message: I changed the title of this subsection to "An Anecdotal Example". The previous title is cute, but probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
:Andy 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A lyrebird's tale" 

message: :Image:Lyrebird-on-reverse-of-Australian-10-cent-coin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lyrebird-on-reverse-of-Australian-10-cent-coin.jpg

message: Removed one of the sources-- it was a broken link.--76.19.93.26 (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: As it stands the anecdote is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  First, it looks like plagiarism because of it's embellished language without in-text citation.
There is one citation for an Ambrose Pratt book.  Whoever made that citation needs to specify, in the text, that Pratt writes this story.  The entire anecdote needs to be rewritten anyway.  Quoting a section from Pratt's work would also be okay.
If this isn't done in a week or so I will either delete the section or rewrite it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjweinberg (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The anecdote 

message: I removed the following statement from the lead of the article
A group of Lyrebirds is called a musket.
Firstly, the lead is meant to be a summary of the information in the article, stand alone claims should not be made here.  Secondly, the claim is unsourced.  Thirdly, Lyrebirds are not a flocking bird, being solitary, so a collective noun is moot. - Nick Thorne talk 12:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Once again, I agree with that removal. The first source (australiaforeveryone.com.au) is a "vacation guide to Australia" and has clearly just collected interesting-sounding items, and is no authority on the topic. The second source (thefreeresource.com) completely fails WP:RS. It's easy for people to make up terms like this and put it on a few websites, but good sources are required before adding to an article here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collective noun 

message: The article mentions introduction to Tasmania in the 19th century, but most other sources say introduction began in the 1930's eg http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/03/1041566222793.html
http://www.warra.com/warra/research_projects/research_project_WRA056.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.163.153 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrebirds in Tasmania 

message: The recent edits are sensational:
*William Avery – 17 July 2014: Downcasing per MOS:LIFE
*Figaro – 18 July 2014: changed 'superb' to 'Superb'. Superb is a naming proper noun - not a description of the bird - and the name 'Superb' should begin with a capital 'S' in the same way that Albert's, the name of the other lyrebird, begins with a capital 'A'
*Nick Thorne – 18 July 2014: Undid revision 617426549 by Figaro nonsense, superb is an adjective
For anyone who missed it, a bitter battle was fought, and the result is that text which used to read:
::The Superb Lyrebird was first illustrated and described...
now should read:
::The superb lyrebird was first illustrated and described...
To me, "superb lyrebird" is silly, and it would be natural to regard "superb" as merely the author's adjectival description of a lyrebird. However, it's the name. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean: I used to think the same, but my mind was changed. I've found that the brain adjusts to the change quite quickly, and it soon ceases to look silly. William Avery (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who is familiar with terminology used in biology, common names are normally only capitalised where they would be in normal English usage.  For example where part of the name is a proper noun (ie Murray cod), or at the beginning of a sentence.  This applies for all organisms.  That a subsection of the bird enthusiast community likes to use initial capitals has always bemused me.  In any case this issue has now been settled on Wiki by the community consensus and it has been decided to follow the same stanbdard for birds as that which applies for all other biology related articles - a completely sensible approach in my humble opinion.  Furhtermore the decision was that the move to replace the initial capital aberration should be done as soon as possible.  This was just one example.  I don't have a lot of birds on my watchlist, I'll leave the majority to others, but I do have some and I am keeping an eye on them.  Until and unless the community consensus changes all editors should abide by the decision. - Nick Thorne talk 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "nonsense, superb is an adjective" accurate? Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Nick Thorne talk 23:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you wouldn't mind elaborating. In general, of course "superb" is an adjective, but in this context wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as a name? I'm not saying that's a reason to spell it "Superb", but I think an acknowledgment of the situation should occur. If I saw a brown dog, the "brown" is definitely an adjective. Seeing a superb lyrebird is rather different. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, taking your points one by one.In general, of course "superb" is an adjective, but in this context wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as a name?  In this context or any other the word superb is an adjective.  An adjective does not change its part of speech - that is, become a "name" as you put it - because it is used with a noun.  BTW, calling superb a name is another way of saying it is a noun.  We can see that this is nonsense by examining the putative sentence "Look, there is a superb!"  Unless we have already established a context this sentence is meaningless, it raises the question "a superb what?"  Adjectives are always used with nouns and they still remain adjectives.  The two word phrase "superb lyrebird" is what is known in the English grammar racket as a compound noun.  The individual parts do not change, the noun remains a noun and the adjective remains an adjective, it is just that for most purposes the compound can be used in a sentence as if it were just an ordinary noun.  There is no magic here, the whole point of adjectives is to modify the meaning of nouns.  They remain adjectives when used.  In this case we use superb lyrebird when necessary to differentiate it from Albert's lyrebird.  In the case of the latter "Albert's" is capitalised because Albert was a person and so his name is a proper noun.I'm not saying that's a reason to spell it "Superb",  YouFigaro did indeed use that reasoning to suggest spelling superb with a capital S.  That was the first edit that I reverted that started this conversation.but I think an acknowledgment of the situation should occur.  There is no situation to be acknowledged.If I saw a brown dog, the "brown" is definitely an adjective. Seeing a superb lyrebird is rather different.  No it isn't, it is exactly the same.  "I saw a dog" "What kind of dog?" "A brown dog" is directly comparable with "I saw a lyrebird" "what kind of lyrebird?" "a superb lyrebird".Seeing a superb lyrebird is rather different.  This is called special pleading.  You have established no basis upon which it necessary, appropriate or desirable to treat the superb lyrebird differently to any other taxon.Nick Thorne talk 05:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean that you would therefore classify the name "Albert's" as an adjective too? Figaro (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Albert's in this case is an attributive noun.  Attributive nouns function in much the same way as adjectives but are not in fact adjectives. - Nick Thorne talk 07:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't have a great concern about how the name is spelled, but I am troubled by inaccurate summations such as the above claim that "a brown dog" identifies a kind of dog in the same way that "a superb lyrebird" identifies a kind of bird. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You make this claim, but you fail to provide any evidence or actual argument beyond mere assertion that this is the case.  It does not matter how much one may wriggle about, one cannot get away from the fact that superb is an adjective, forming part of a compound noun in no way changes that fact. - Nick Thorne talk 07:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Albert's is certainly not attributive here, it's adjectival: this is how we're able to say "an Albert's lyrebird".  Superb is an adjective too, but unlike Albert's it doesn't derive from a proper noun and so it should receive no capitalization according to MOS:LIFE. The descriptors were added only when the second species was discovered – superb denotes the superior mimickry and size of the first. One might think that's odd or even POV, but it's firmly established vernacular terminology. SteveStrummer (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspeak 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lyrebird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507061311/http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/endangered/the_alberts_lyrebird_project/ to http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/endangered/the_alberts_lyrebird_project
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified