Talk:Penguin

Linguistics separate

As interesting as the uncertain etymology of Penguin is, I don't think that this kind of lengthy etymology belongs in an article about the bird. Citizendium is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. If the word's history is really substantial enough to merit treatment, then an entry for Penguin (word) ought to be created. That's what I'm going to do, for now. Russell Potter 06:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Flying penguins

I think one angle we could have on this article would be to point out that, technically, penguins can fly - through water. Their physiology is different from 'true' flightless birds, in that their wings act as fins rather than appear as vestigial limbs. Also, I believe penguins' ancestors could fly. John Stephenson 20:45, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Images

I thought that since the first paragraphs are quite general, and only mention one species (the emperor penguin), that type should feature first. I have demoted Russell's gentoo to a supporting role (sorry), but it can be moved anywhere once we have more content. John Stephenson 03:17, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

"in popular culture"

John, I apologize for not leaving an explanation. And I am grateful to you for fixing the references and the improvements that you have made in the article. This is a biology article, and in Citizendium -although if there was an individual Penguin who achieved fame- like Balto did- who is mentioned in Dog, we do not mix in images of animals in popular culture - or the significance of penguins in Freudian analysis or any other completely unrelated discussion of the animal. Since the word itself is pertinent, and since your effort was going to be deleted, I suggested including it. We want to encourage participation and I know that I can work with that section "the word Penguin" so that it includes a synthesis of sources. But the whole Wikipedian convention of including every aspect that might be free-associated to "Animal X" in the Animal X article is not the convention at Citizendium. If you want to write that "Popular culture" riff as a separate article that could be in the media workgroup, or some other work group- fine, but I would discuss it with an editor there. Please remove that section one way or the other. It has no place in this Biology workgroup article and that is true of every Biology article on a species or kind of animal (or plant). By the way- you might look at the article Tux :-) Nancy Sculerati 08:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm banking it here- I don't want to be rude but this is not a precedent that I can tolerate in these species/genus/kind of animal articles. By the way- an article on animals in popular culture might be great - you could start that at put this there and go on to include all the animals that have starring roles in popular culture and it would be a very interesting and worthwhile addition then CZ. Nancy Sculerati 09:06, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't understand this. I thought articles could be associated with multiple workgroups; how do you know that someone searching for 'penguin' is interested only in the biology of these species? John Stephenson 21:01, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Further to this, I'm going to move the material to Penguins in popular culture; presumably I am missing something here, and this article has to be associated only with biology. John Stephenson 21:17, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

---

Penguin species

collecting data for table

1) Adelie penguin - 2) Pygoscelis adeliae,3) Magellanic penguins- Spheniscus magellanicus, 4) Humboldt penguins -Spheniscus humboldti, 5) macaroni penguin - Eudyptes chrysolophus, 6) gentoo penguin -Pygoscelis papua, 7) king penguin - Aptenodytes patagonicus, 8) emperor penguins - Aptenodytes forsteri, royal penguin

High priority

This is a high priority Google search item. --Larry Sanger 17:00, 11 October 2007 (CDT)