Talk:Signalling theory

message: Adding links to the actual publications would be better... it's impossible to track down the papers with only the name of the author and date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.214.221 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the papers are listed in full in the 'Sources' section at the end of the paper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I tryed to fix the references to the usual format. Could not fix all of them since some of them like "Farthing 2005" etc are missing in the Sources list. I used the doi or ISBN number in the Citer tool to generate references. Some of them differs from the Sources list, so that list is corrupt.Menemenetekelufarsim (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The references have been incorrectly edited: missing second author, inconsistent date, etc. I have tried to apply short-ref styles, but the inline citations cannot be connected to the bibliography when they are divergent. Alcaios (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better now, but there are one "Sosis 2000" and two works in the Sources list from the same year and author. The same problem with "Zahavi 1977". Menemenetekelufarsim (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-fruit-sperm-giant.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature18005.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  They seem to compete directly with other sperm, so natural selection operates at that level and maybe others. No need to invoke signalling theory, specially not if the scientists haven't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not think that the scientists wrongly used the word 'ornament' in their article, but the subject is rather tangentially related to signaling theory.  And, I affirm that Chiswick Chap made the right decision here.  The phrase 'giant sperm' might not be considered appropriate for all ages to every culture of English speakers.  We can annul that bit of information to keep a greater potential audience.Yazdandaste (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant sperm of some Drosophila species are possibly the most extreme ornaments 

message: The human section refers to "mates" in a way that seems insensitive, given that it's mostly talking about tribal people. Could we either change the phrasing or add more widely representative examples? 72.174.158.241 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'mates' is oddly used in evolutionary biology, even when it applies to humans.  I do not believe that term here complies with the article standard of British English, where 'mates' has a colloquial connotation.  I agree that the article could be made more culturally sensitive by replacing the word 'mates' with 'reproductive partners'.  Such a change would be: more specific; culturally unbiased; and physiologically relevant.Yazdandaste (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can't say I agree. The term is readily understood, and it's a lot less klunky than the proposed circumlocution, whose tone is reminiscent of a dreary sociology lecture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, some of this content is useful to sociology and psychology.  I do not think the terminological change is absolutely imperative, because this page is in the subject of biology.  In the future, editing the usage at a single point might not hurt; if that edit directly quotes a paper with a politically correct equivocation.Yazdandaste (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "mate/s" in its sense from evolutionary biology could be defined and explicitly pointed out in the article so that it is clear to those unfamiliar with the field. Kubis (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor phrasing for human section? (mate/s) 

message: Yeah, right. Like this?
: x^{*}(\alpha) = \left[ \sum_{i=peafowl crest}^{n} \alpha_i \Sigma_i^{-1} \right]^{-1} \times \left[  \sum_{i=1}^{jay call}  \alpha_i \Sigma_i^{-1} \mu_i \right]
Editing by comitee at its best.217.248.3.78 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence was garbled. However, papers such as "Enhancing game theory with coevolutionary simulation models of honest signalling" do indeed make use of mathematical models to describe how signalling could work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mathematical models in which organisms advertise their condition" 

message: Honest signalling and costly signalling do not mean the same thing. This is very confused in the article. It should not be. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honest Signalling and Costly Signalling Are Not the Same 

message: Pronk probably dates back earlier than the Afrikaans to Dutch pronk painting of the 1650s or so. Wikiuser0 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you know a reliable source? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronk 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Signalling (biology). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Signalling (biology) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Spicy (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Signalling (biology)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]