Talk:Animal coloration/Archive 2

Category ethology

An editor recently deletd my addition of "ethology" to the categories on the basis this article is about colouration which is not behaviour. I disagree. The two are almost totally intertwined. For example, the caption for the lead photograph reads with my (behaviour) inserted "A brilliantly-coloured oriental sweetlips fish (Plectorhinchus vittatus) waits (behaviour) while two boldly-patterned cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) pick parasites (behaviour) from its skin. The spotted tail and fin pattern of the Sweetlips signals sexual maturity (physiology and behaviour); the behaviour (behaviour) and pattern of the cleaner fish signal their availability for cleaning service (behaviour), rather than as prey". Using the editor's logic, all references to behaviour in the article should be deleted. At the same time, have a look at the other categories which have not been deleted - "Human evolution"????? Also, use of AE and BE is inconsistent in this article.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, hi.

Secondly, no idea why/how 'Human evolution' was there, have removed it. Obviously that introduces oddities.

Thirdly, there is no reason why articles on, say, politics cannot touch on matters of, say, economics or agriculture or religion or whatever; unless those mentions are core to an article it is odd to add categories for them; and equally, there's no reason to demand their removal if they are cited and relevant. Animal coloration is (obviously) relevant to how animals behave, and the things (clearly) co-evolved, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

Fourthly, "coloration" is British English, which I assume is what "BE" means. Both Beddard (1892) and Cott (1940) used that spelling, as many Brits still do today, so it's not a new thing. Yeah, our spelling system is totally chaotic, we know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

Secondly, yes, these unusual additions happen.

Third, I still believe Ethology is related enough to Animal colouration to be included as a category. This is clearly a matter of opinion - perhaps we should wait for the opinions of others to be stated.

Fourthly, I did not know "coloration" was a BE spelling. Being British myself I still find it difficult to write "behavior" when editing articles ;-) Even if coloration is a BE spelling, it looks odd to have the title spelt one way and the text another.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should have "coloration" everywhere - people do edit it to -ou- thinking it's an improvement, so all we can do is either abandon hope or edit it back, not sure which is the right answer. I suspect that consistency in an animal as many-legged as Wikipedia is quite impossible, and very probably undesirable. There are days when I wish all articles had references organized the same way - and days when I'm delighted they're so randobolic (that's random and shambolic rolled into one). It really doesn't matter if this article gets another category or three. Good on yer for your etho-editing. Keep the faith. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I get confused about the spelling every time (sometimes months apart) that I check this article, but live by the sword, die by the sword I guess. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)