Talk:Coati

message: I just added a photograph of what I think is a White-nosed Coati, so it might be better to place it there. But I'm not sure, so could anyone tell me? DirkvdM 10:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Photograph by Dirk van der Made, but avoid refs to User: Fplay 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Per the consensus on the coatimundi page, I merged the previously existing coati and coatimundi articles on this page. Rlendog (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged Article

message: For some reason I thought it was a K - does anyone know whether that is correct usage?  It does turn up on Google, but not on Wikipedia or Wiktionary - and for a moment I thought I was imagining it.  Hence I didn't get a redirect from Koati.  Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koati? 

message: I did not add this, as I will leave that to a mammal expert, but I believe the Coati is the same animal that is known in Central America (especially Guatemala) as a "Pisote"
if this is correct, someone that knows their stuff could please add this to the article
209.236.250.213 (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pisote does appear to be in use for coatis . Not sure whether it needs to be mentioned on this page, though. Ucucha 19:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

text: True, and there was already a bunch of alternative names, so no harm in adding another. When people search for pisote, they are now redirected here. Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 12:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pisote 

message: How is coatimundi a misnomer? This needs explanation. Is it being considered a misnomer because the word is applied more broadly (to all members of the species/genus) in English than in Tupi? Loan-words commonly take on slightly different applications in the new language than the original. That doesn't make them misnomers. Is it a misnomer because it's not on some "official" list of common names of mammals? That doesn't make it a misnomer either (especially when English usage of coatimundi predates any "official" lists). Calling coatimundi a misnomer seems like prescriptivism run amok.192.104.39.2 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused by this as well. I would like to see the justification for this being a "misnomer" cited. - CompliantDrone (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the only source cited for this was "Coati at bartleby.com", which pointed to a deep link that's apparently disappeared. What's more, this was cited as a source only for the word "coatimundi" itself! I've removed the reference to bartleby.com and indicated that the whole sentence needs a better citation. --LarryGilbert (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From a bit of googling, it appears that "coati" is preferred by biologists, with "coatimundi" an alternative:
*Nasua narica (Coatimundi, White-nosed Coati) at International Union for Conservation of Nature
*Animal Diversity Web at University of Michigan.   "Coatis are also referred to in some texts as coatimundis. The name coati or coatimundi is Tupian Indian in origin."
*definition of coatimundi at Merriam-Webster: Coati.  Origin of COATIMUNDI:
Portuguese quatimundé, from Tupi kwatimúnde, older male coati not with a band, from kwáti coati + múnde snare, trap. First Known Use: 1676
So I'll reinstate it to an alternative, cited accordingly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer? 

message: In the Physical Description section, near the end of the 4th paragraph is a sentence that says coati have traits in common with the "ferret-skunk" family. 
:Other animals living in forests have acquired some or all of these properties through convergent evolution, including members of the mongoose, civet, ferret-skunk, cat, and bear families.
My problem is that I can't find any references to "ferret-skunk" in Wiki or Google. What is it/are they?
I removed it. Someone who knows what it is can re-add it with a better name.
Also, since the sentence specificially mentions "family" and not any specific species or Genus, I added links to the other members (cat and bear)mentioned. 
Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused over Term 

message: According to the New Yorker, there has been a case of self-reference here due to some long-undetected vandalism inserting the phrase "Brazilian aardvark". Please don't add this information back in without reference to pre-2008 sources. The Land (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, you're citing a newspaper article for proof that a previously cited newspaper article was wrong. Furthermore, as pointed out by the above article, Coati are now known as Brazilian aardvark (on the internet), so I think the name should be included in the article, with a note that it was made up and became popular because of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.19.210.198 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the edit introducing "Brazilian Aardvark" to this article seems to have been this one from July 2008. Doing a Google search for Brazilian Aardvark, the earliest reference I can find is this, from November 2008. I am unable to find any Google Books results mentioning the term before 2013. If anyone can find any reference to the "Brazilian aardvark" from before this date, please do post here, because at the moment this does look like a hoax. The Land (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if the term has entered the general lexicon (which I doubt) rather than being in just isolated use, then we can add the term along with a bit of its history.  Also, if it has NOT entered the general lexicon but its use as a hoax/wikiality/circular reference itself becomes notable, a stand-alone article called "Brazilian aardvark" that talk about the term and its history rather than the animal can be written.  However, since we are in the "15 minutes of fame" period where "flash in the pan news" can't always be distinguished from real WP:Notability, it's way too soon to tell if that is the case and, therefore, way too soon to create an article about the term.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I get 1,590 Google hits on "brazilian aardvark" - many of which are near-direct copies of Wikipedia itself. I don't believe that's enough to put the term in usage except among people who'd just read older versions of this article. I'm tempted to contact the news sources / publishers who have repeated it and suggest they amend their articles. The Land (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like it's worth acknowledging the pop-culture phenomenon in the article, rather than just ignoring it and pretending it never happened.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambiguator (talk • contribs) 13:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with this.  Maybe a section for "in popular culture", as a magazine like the New Yorker indicates that it's hit popular culture, albeit for the wrong reasons.ip.address.conflict (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One mention in the New Yorker doesn't mean it's a "pop culture phenomenon", in my view. The Land (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with 64.85, in several months the "obvious" thing to do will be quite different than it seems to be now. —johndburger 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I extensively refactored the text under "Spurious Common Name", because as I found it it was a copy/paste job from The New Yorker and included a possible BLP issue. However I don't object to what looks like the consensus view that it should probably be removed from the article (I note that it has been written into another article about circular referencing, where it is entirely appropriate.) I also request that nobody include "Brazilian aardvark" elsewhere in the article as a "legitimate" common name until/unless some years pass and more RS use it. Geogene (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian Aardvark self-reference 

message: I don't see any consensus in the previous thread that "Brazilian aardvark" should stay in the article (once the initial media attention had died down). The hoax doesn't have any long term encyclopedic significance to coatis. Media coverage doesn't really seem to have really increased usage of "Brazilian aardvark" as a common name for coatis. User:The Land found 1,590 reported Google hits for "Brazilian aardvark" on 20 May 2014, a day after the New Yorker story was published. There are now 1,960 reported Google hits for "Brazilian aardvark". Most of the hits on the first several pages of results are about the hoax itself, and many were published after 20 May 2014, so it seems likely most of the additional 370 reported Google hits are discussing the hoax. Yes, there are some Google hits from British newspaper articles from 2010 and 2013, but that is before the hoax was uncovered, and I don't think those represent reliable sources to cite post-hoax.
Maybe the section about the hoax should be readded, but Brazilian aardvark does not belong in the lead section, in bold, as the first listed alternative name. Coati gets 541,000 reported Google results. Coatimundi gets 202,000. Even "hog-nosed coon" gets 2,720 (which is still more than Brazilian aardvark).
I'm removing "Brazilian aardvark" again. It's not really a very widely-used term for the animal, and the sourcing is poor (one article from 2013, and the New Yorker piece describing how it's a hoax). Readd the Spurious Common Name section if you must, or discuss further. Plantdrew (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian Aardvark redux 

message: Коати 
As you can see they have absolutely the same name, but russian page connected with White-nosed_coati, which should be connected with Белоносая носуха  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAnarchy (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian page has wrong connection