Talk:Loriini
Untitled
editThe rainbow lorikeets in the photo are not in the species list. Are they just missing, or is "Trichoglossus haematodus" a synonym for another species? -- Cordyph 13:45 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Well spotted! Fix on the way. Tannin
Rainbow lorikeet is a generic term for several different subspecies
editThere are more than 20 types of rainbow lorikeets, the most common are the green naped and the Swainson's(I think these are the ones in the photo.) Here's a link with a good description: http://www.lorikeets.com/rainbows.htm
where do they live/where are they found? could someone add a little more info?
"Lorikeet"- a subset of "Lory"
editIt might make more sense to roll the Lory and Lorikeet articles together under the title "Lories and Lorikeets". Many reference books use 'Lory' to refer to both lories and lorikeets (ie. Handcock House Encyclopedia of the Lories, Mivart's Monograph of the Lories.)Individuals searching Wikipedia for Lory, Lorikeet, or Brush-tounged parrot should be redirected to this article. The Alice in Wonderland reference should be handled in the same way as the other fictional animals in the book.
In the pet industry, the term 'lorikeet' is used to refer to members of the loriidae family with long tails. In aviculture, is quite common to see the two terms used interchangeably when describing the long-tailed members. For example, Stella's Lory is also referred to as Stella's Lorikeet, Green-naped lory is the same as Green-naped Lorikeet.
Does anyone else agree with this? Voodlecat 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Most links go to "Lorikeet" at the present time, and there are only a few links going to the "Lory" page. Perhaps the page could be called "Loriinae", but it is a wiki guideline to use the most widely used name as page names. I think that a consensus is needed before someone does a lot of work changing all the links. Your suggestion of "Lories and Lorikeets" is a good idea. I will make it a redirect at the present time to make it linkable. A page can be moved over a redirect. Snowman 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, determining which is the most commonly used term is the rub. In my circle (owners of various species of this subfamily) the term "lory" can refer to either the long-tailed or short-tailed species (Edward's Lory/lorikeet), but "lorikeet" is never used to refer to the short-tailed species (ex. Balck Lory). In that sense "lorikeet" is a subset of "lory". Also, I did a quick analysis of the common names within the subfamily and it was 67% lory over lorikeet. On the other hand, most individuals encounter these types of parrots at zoos or pet stores where the majority of species are of the trichoglossus genus (green-nape, blue mountain or Swainson's) which are referred to as "lorikeets" in their native land of Australia. And to further the confusion, Rosemary Low uses the terms interchangably. I still think that "Lories and Lorikeets" is the best suited title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voodlecat (talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, "Lories and lorikeets" and they are not proper nouns. Snowman 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now moved and redirects fixed. Snowman 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, "Lories and lorikeets" and they are not proper nouns. Snowman 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, determining which is the most commonly used term is the rub. In my circle (owners of various species of this subfamily) the term "lory" can refer to either the long-tailed or short-tailed species (Edward's Lory/lorikeet), but "lorikeet" is never used to refer to the short-tailed species (ex. Balck Lory). In that sense "lorikeet" is a subset of "lory". Also, I did a quick analysis of the common names within the subfamily and it was 67% lory over lorikeet. On the other hand, most individuals encounter these types of parrots at zoos or pet stores where the majority of species are of the trichoglossus genus (green-nape, blue mountain or Swainson's) which are referred to as "lorikeets" in their native land of Australia. And to further the confusion, Rosemary Low uses the terms interchangably. I still think that "Lories and Lorikeets" is the best suited title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voodlecat (talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Um, the article should be moved back to lorikeet. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions state a strong preference for singular usage in the article titles except when plurals are most commonly used. In this instance Lory is already a dab page so the natural place to put the article is lorikeet. This is no different to many other bird taxa where there are two (or more) common names used often interchangably, for example we have the main Ardeidae page at heron even though many herons are actually called egrets or bitterns, we keep the main Psittaciformes article at parrot even though there are many that are known as parakeets, lories, lorikeets and cockatoos, and the main Cuculidae article at Cuckoo, even though many species are actually called coucals, koels, roadrunners, anis, yellowbills and malkohas. If you find it unacceptable to house the article at lorikeet please at least move it to Loriinae. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Um" is difficult to interpret; does it mean that you are not sure? There were many links for "Lories and lorikeets" as one phrase, and it is used a lot as one phrase. If the name was Lorikeets there would need to be a lot of piped links, so this is an exception. I am not sure that lories are a subset of lorikeets for everybody. I agree that Loriinae would be a good name, which I suggested and nearly used, but is "Loriinae" a well known word and will it be searched for? (see above) I think that the current name "Lories and lorikeets" is working well. It might be best to wait for a week or two for a consensus on the name of the page, because there are a lot of redirects to change. Snowman (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- To address some of your points
- Um in that context was just verbally padding indicating that I don't really want to broach the subject but...
- There were many links for "Lories and lorikeets" as one phrase, and it is used a lot as one phrase. Maybe so. But as far as I am aware no one would get to a page called Lorikeet and go "No dammit! I want Lories! Lories!" or, conversely, be looking for lorikeet and have their nose put out of joint if they came to a page called Lory. And no one is going to get too confused, since the term lories and lorikeets will still be in the taxobox and intro.
- so this is an exception. Exceptions need exceptionally good rationales to my mind. I cannot see any in this case. Loriinae is preferable to breaking the MOS. Not to mention the possibility of creating a precedent which will lead some 'helpful' editor to come along and move cuckoo to cuckoos, coucals, koels, roadrunners, anis, yellowbills and malkohas.
- but is "Loriinae" a well known word and will it be searched for? Does it matter? If there is a redirect and a dab page then the common terms will lead to the desired page regardless. Pigeon redirects to Columbidae and is neater than Pigeons and doves.
- I think that the current name "Lories and lorikeets" is working well. And I think it is hideous. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- For clarity please indicate if you now suggesting Lorrikeet (your resent first edit here) or Loriinae (your next edit here) as your preferred name of this page? Snowman (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- In the parlance of the last US election, anything except what it is now. Lorikeet was fine, Loriinae would be fine too. I don't much care. Just not the plurals. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Loriinae would be ok. This is the name for the classification as a sub-family, but some classify it as a family called Loriidae. Perhaps, lorikeets may not include lories for many. I am not totally happy with the name "Lorikeets and lories", but I thought I did the correct move at the time. Not many people participated in the discussion lasting over six months and I waited a long time for more people to contribute to the discussion. I am glad that you have raised the point again. Loriidae is a link in a lot of taxoboxes, so if this page was named loriidae many of the wikilinks would be tidier than if the name was Lorikeet. If no one else participates in this discussion, I think that it would be likely that we would agree to change the name of the page to the proper scientific name of the sub-family of parrots called "Loriinae". Redirects and an appropriate introduction would make the "Loriinae" page user friendly. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The discussion period prior to reaching a consensus for the move from "Lorikeet" to "Lories and lorikeets" lasted for more than six months from 2 April 2007 to 15 October 2007. At that time "Lorikeet" was not thought to be a good name for the page. Nevertheless, after a period of time, a consensus can change, and anyone can request a page move. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have left a note at WP:BIRD asking for people to come weigh in. There isn't, as you observe, a compelling rush, although it would be best to have a concensus of more than two....Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the page should be moved from Lories and lorikeets; guess I'd prefer Loriinae (or Loriidae) to Lorikeet if, as Snowmanradio says, some may not think of Lory as being part of Lorikeet. MeegsC | Talk 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have left a note at WP:BIRD asking for people to come weigh in. There isn't, as you observe, a compelling rush, although it would be best to have a concensus of more than two....Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
After three weeks, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming desire to move the page, so I'm declining the move. If I've misunderstood the discussion or missed something, please re-open the discussion at WP:RM. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Lory discoveries?
editCan we ask why the historical discovery of the Lorys was removed by snowman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.46 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Reference
editNot sure how to add an external link to the diet part of this article. It is information I know from owning lorikeets but it seems support for statements is desirable. Supporting info from http://birds.about.com/od/feeding/tp/poisonousfoods.htm I have permission from the original author to use her article.
Hi Ilja,
Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading About Pet Birds. Of course you may link to my article on Wikipedia. I'm glad that you found it informative and flattered that you would like to include it in your entry. Thank you!
Best Wishes,
Alyson Burgess Guide to Pet Birds www.about.com http://birds.about.com Become an About.com Guide: beaguide@about.com About.com is part of the New York Times Company —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuron (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Word etymology
editFrom loro (Spanish), roro (Cariban origin)?--达伟 (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Photo correction
editThe photo has the species name as H.t. moluccanus. Should be T.h. moluccanus. And I saw that error propagated to a photo in National Geographic 2012 Photo contest. 208.61.97.117 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Lorini vs. Loriini
editThe lead, category and navbox call this tribe "Lorini", while the infobox has "Loriini", which sounds more convincing to me given the subfamily name "Loriinae" and the genus "Lorius". Could someone clarify this? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
molecular?
editTraditionally, they were considered a separate subfamily (Loriinae) from the other subfamily (Psittacinae) based on the specialized characteristics, but recent molecular and morphological studies show that the group is positioned in the middle of various other groups.
should this be genetic? ∈Sensorsweep (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
“Lorries” are also a term in the UK for a truck.
editPerhaps there should be a note at the top of the page for those looking for the truck—especially if there's a redirect from "Lories" to this page. Granted, the spelling is different, but some people using mobile devices will get it wrong. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Will Pittenger: as you may have noted since writing this comment, some time ago now, articles titles are usually singular [lorry, not lorries], and this exception is something I propose to rectify. Regards, cygnis insignis 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 26 November 2018
edit- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Lories and lorikeets → Loriini – Loriini, it rolls off the tongue when you have heard it once, and it is purdy as a pail full o' kittens, like a country-singin' ingénue. This is the common and accepted name for the group, this parenthetical descriptor is not an appropriate title on so many levels, and that wonkish deviation from the literature is instantly recognisable to those who attempt to negotiate wikipedia's vernacular taxonomy that this title is the epitome of … Lories and lorikeets?!, pardon, I mean of course, lories and lorikeets … [double exclamation point]. Please agree to this helpful proposal, I'm running out of novel pitches to undo reactionary silliness. cygnis insignis 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not decided "Lories and lorikeets" makes more sense in being WP:COMMONNAME, which surely "(tribe Loriini)" is not for these "small to medium-sized arboreal parrots" In ictu oculi (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that page supports my proposal, so another perspective then? The scope of the page regards a theory, defined by a name, the french loan words, trade names and so on, are incidental. English vernacular might be loosely appended to all sorts of ranks, unlike the proposed title, it is unconstrained by rules, unlike the proposed title, they are merely casual references to an intricate web of citations, "lory/ies and lorikeet/s" does not give any clue to which citations the author or text is referring. The correspondence to defined groups becomes even poorer as understanding of these groups relationships is improved. That is why any reliable source uses a systematic name, it is the citation, and communication was greatly facilitated by this nigh-universally agreed system of names. Deciding on one common name, or a pair, is not something people are generally bothered about. The only english naming committees that I am aware of, outside of wikiprojects, do not even attempt to apply them to ranks higher than species (wp:birds follows IOC, a former IOU committee, they only try to rename species). I've got another way of looking it at, if you are interested, it's a pearler. cygnis insignis 08:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support - the proposal is kind of a word salad, but titles that follow a "thing and other thing" format are not ideal (loosely per WP:XY). The proposed new title is preferable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Current title is an abomination. Title containing "and" are discouraged if there is a reasonable alternative (WP:AND). Titles with plurals are also discouraged (WP:PLURAL) (although I suppose the "and" makes the plural forms more grammatical). Use of scientific name is CONSISTENT with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on organisms (and even with many bird higher taxa). Plural/and form is inconsistent with any other organism article using a vernacular name title. The scientific name is more CONCISE than the current title. Scientific names are inherently more PRECISE than vernacular names. The scientific name is far more NATURAL (in large part due to the current double-barreled "and" title). RECOGNIZABLE? OK, there's one of the five title criteria that favors a vernacular name title. But redirects and external search engines are good at getting are readers to relevant articles regardless of what title is chosen, and if we drop the "and" and go with either Lory or Lorikeet for the title, it loses recognizability for anybody searching for the term that isn't chosen. Plantdrew (talk)
- 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.