Talk:Animal coloration/Archive 1

Kallima

This isn't a butterfly article. We're illustrating a butterfly that looks like a leaf when hiding. If people have to look hard at the original photo to see the butterfly, well, they are supposed to. The dual image does not serve this purpose and takes up a disproportionate amount of space. If people want to know more about a Kallima butterfly, they can click on the Kallima article (coming to a wikipedia near you). As it is, they can click on the original photo which is cross linked to the second image. In the meantime, we should find more images which illustrate the other critters mentioned in the article. Anybody got a zebra-in-the-moonlight photo? Rklawton 06:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The dual image does not serve this purpose and takes up a disproportionate amount of space. I completely disagree. The duality in coloring is stunning. Many camouflaging animals don't show this duality. --Janke | Talk 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but this isn't an article about the Kallima's duality. It's an article that includes a discussion on "invisibility" and uses the Kallima as an example. The single, original image illustrates "invisibility". The dual image illustrates how stunning Kallimas are. Save "stunning" duality for the Kallima article where it fits. Rklawton 07:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Janke - when I first saw the image I thought it was an image of a leaf, and a casual glance from a reader will get the same reaction. I think you need the dual image to tell people what they are looking at. |→ Spaully°τ 10:22, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

How 'bout a better caption? Rklawton 03:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a copy from EB. It sure looks like it. The whole article needs a cleanup, removal of references to images not shown here, etc. --Janke | Talk 07:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's a copyright violation, then we must remove it. Is it? Otherwise, I agree about needing cleanup. It doesn't reference images, but it makes animal references which bear illustrating. I think we should leave those in - even without the illustrations - or the article would make little sense. At least I know what a zebra looks like, even if it doesn't have a zebra-in-the-moonlight illustration. It sure looks a lot like some old prof's lecture notes to me. Rklawton 07:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's NOT a copyvio if it's from the 1911 Enc. Britannica - that has lapsed into the public domain. However, a heavy cleanup is necessary, but I'll leave that to the experts on the subject. --Janke | Talk 14:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps:

This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikisource.
If the page can be edited into an encyclopedic article, rather than merely a copy of the source text, please do so and remove this message. Otherwise, you can help by formatting it per the Wikisource guidelines in preparation for the move.

As this is not the exact text from EB 1911 it should not be moved to wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice if we had the material at source - I can't seem to find it there. Richard001 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed the obvious mistakes ('cuntry' was one of the more concerning typos) and updated some clearly outdated statements (such as A.R. Wallace being no longer alive) and theoretical issues (e.g. 'being advantage to the species'). The material is still much in need of updating and further revision, but it's a small start. Richard001 06:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and lack of a broader article

Do we have a more general article about the colors of organisms? This is the only one I can find, and it only covers one kingdom. Is there need for a more separate article on animals? Encyclopedia Britannica for example currently has just a single article, coloration, which is around 60 pages.

For the time being I'm moving it to animal coloration, which seems a more logical name.

Actually, I changed it to animal colouration to match the spelling used, but since we use color in every other article about the subject it should probably be changed back. Richard001 04:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should aim to move this to coloration and attempt to broaden the scope. The main themes aren't that different in the other kingdoms, but there is a lot of material that isn't covered in the article, and it would need examples from throughout the tree of life before a move would be appropriate. Either that or we could start a new article on coloration from scratch, though that may render this one redundant. Richard001 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Too stuffy

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition No wonder it is so suffocating stuffy. Jidanni (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to write a new one for colouration in general, then think about what to do with this one. I think taxa specific articles on colouration wouldn't be that bad an idea, but would demand even more work, and we haven't even had a single person step forward to write this one in well over six months (I'd like to, but I haven't even managed to read the Britannica article on the subject yet). Richard001 (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I removed the lead image

A frog hardly visible on the ground due to its camouflage colouration.

after spending a fair amount of time hoping that the subject occupied about a third of the area and then I was quite disappointed when I discovered the small but otherwise well marked frog in the top middle occupying a small part of this photo. I think there are better examples of crypsis on wikimedia commons.Shyamal (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Propose stubbifying "Mimicry or pseudo-sematic colours" section

This section is horribly outdated and embarrassing.

• It makes it sound like Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) is a current authority
• Half of the section is simply an argument about why natural selection is the best explanation for mimicry. (I'm sure such arguments were relevant in 1911, but it is hardly necessary in 2009.)
• The word "genetics" doesn't appear once, nor is the concept mentioned at all
• The last century of research is reduced to a single sentence at the end: "More recent theories by the likes of W. D. Hamilton and Amotz Zahavi (see handicap principle) have also been proposed."
• The tone and writing style do not conform with modern standards, much less Wikipedia standards.
• It is terribly long and pedantic

I think reducing this section to a few sentences and starting from scratch would be much better than what is there now. I'm sure no one wants to edit that section whatsoever in its current state, so I doubt it would improve organically. We have plenty of good material in the mimicry article that we could begin summarizing there instead. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdated, desperately needs updating

Yes, Kaldari is absolutely right, this article is a century out of date, and everything is wrong about how it's written. I've marked a few of the really dinosaur terms as "was once called" but much more radical surgery is needed to save this patient. To put the opposing case, the article was happily written at a time (1911) when many of the pioneers - Wallace, Darwin, Thayer, Bates, Mueller - had done their stuff. But the article needs a century of updating.

Summary of mimicry would indeed help but camouflage and warning coloration also need modern treatment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, try this

OK, I've bitten the bullet and attempted a complete rewrite. I cut nearly all the 1911 text (and all but 5 of the photos), and used the existing Wiki articles on the subtopics (Camouflage, Mimicry etc) as hooks for a much simplified list of sections. I have tried to describe the history very simply by referring to the pioneers, their books, and their basic ideas, which I have explained as directly as possible with homely examples. I've also added some further reading for adults and children, and found a few interesting websites too. I think the result is clearer and more modern - certainly a lot more analytic - and by using existing Wiki pages, much less repetitive. Hope you like it. Hope it stimulates you to do better - but in the case of an overview article like this, please help to keep the article short! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons upload boxes

These should all be moved down to the bottom, say into 'References'. They are far too obtrusive when scattered around. Normal WP practice would be to have a single box pointing to 'material on animal colouration', but as Commons doesn't have such a category, I agree separate boxes are appropriate.

Using the 'contact us' link on the Commons front page, you might suggest they create a joint category which would include all the types of animal colouration. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I see. But given that this is an introductory overview article, with separate Main articles briefly covered in its sections, it's actually quite nice to have several Commons boxes. And I don't find them intrusive in this context, which they would certainly be in a highly specialised article. And as you rightly say, there isn't (yet) a unique Commons category to point to. Agreed we could ask for one, if anyone is feeling like doing a lot of recategorisation! I guess that power users allowed to use bulk editing tools could add a new category to all members of {a set of five categories}, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A Note on the Spelling ("coloration" is, surprisingly, British English)

This is just a note (please don't edit) to draw your attention to the /* Requested Move */ section below which explains that "coloration" is, surprisingly, the British spelling! The whole article is spelt Britannically, so please don't tweak it. Thanks.Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. While we generally prefer not to change article titles from one accepted spelling to another, in this case it has been shown that the proposed title is more commoly accepted in both American and British English. Jafeluv (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

---

• Animal colouration → Animal coloration
• Advertising colouration → Advertising coloration

– Per WP:COMMONALITY. Both articles should remain written in British English per WP:ENGVAR; however, the spelling coloration is preferred by major British dictionaries (including Chambers, Collins, and Oxford) and English usage guides (for example, both Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language and Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage state that coloration is the British spelling, and do not acknowledge colouration). The standard reference dictionaries for most other Commonwealth countries prefer coloration (for example, Canadian Oxford and New Zealand Oxford); only the Macquarie Dictionary prefers colouration, but even then it lists coloration alongside it in the headword. Some standardized rigour (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Which editions are you looking at? In my opinion, we should use the spelling adopted in the creation of the article. Rennell435 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am referring to the most recent editions of the texts listed above. The relevant excerpts in the usage guides are (my emphases): "Before vernacular suffixes, the u is retained: armourer, colourful, flavoursome, savoury. It is also kept before the French suffix -able: honourable. Before Latinate suffixes, however, it is dropped: honorary, honorific, humorous, humorist, coloration, deodorize, invigorate. In such cases, AmE and BrE spellings are the same." (Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, 2003) and "In BrE the customary spellings of words related to colour are colourable (= specious, counterfeit), colourant (= colouring substance), colourful, colourist (= a painter in colour), and colourless, but coloration (= a colour scheme), colorific (= producing colour), colorimeter (= a measuring instrument), and decolorize (= remove the colour from). In AmE all have -or-, not -our-." (Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2nd edition, 2008). I am aware that colouration is the established spelling in both of these articles and, per WP:ENGVAR, am not arguing against British spelling being used in these pages (for example, colour); however, unless it can be proven otherwise, British and Commonwealth usage seems to be behind coloration, hence my request per WP:COMMONALITY. —Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As a native Brit (involved in reworking this page), I note that I naturally use 'coloration', just as North Americans do. 'Colouration' is permitted because it was apparently used by Brits a century or two ago, like the anon author of the antique article whose content has now been replaced, but the usage feels really odd now. Rennell435, let me set your mind at rest, the spelling adopted in the article's creation is purely historic, by which I mean 19th century, literally. Let's go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge of Animal markings to here

Animal markings has been redirected to here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)