From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"like"[change source]

I have just reverted all American Eagle's changes (because it was the simplest way to fix the numerous problems caused by the changes.).

The word like has several meanings

1. Like as a verb as in "prefer" or "care for" 2. Like as in "such as..." 3. Like as in "in a similar manner to..."

Where the word can be replaced with "such as..", the change is fine. I will return those edits.

However, in every place where AE has changed "like" meaning "in a similar manner to..." the sense has been lost in an effort to find some convoluted way of expressing a term that can be summed up in the one single simple word "like".. In some cases the meaning has bbeen totally destroyed. In other places it has been converted into sheer nonsense.

This use of "like" in this way is absolutely correct English, with no other simple substitute. It is the basis of all the well-known verb-based similes. sleep like a log, drop like a stone, stick like glue, eat like a pig, run like fury, sweat like a horse, cry like a baby.

Not "sleep in the way that a log sleeps".

Simple English needs to be well-written English.

Amandajm (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

'hollow bones'[change source]

Not all birds have hollow bones. I have no idea why my edit got reverted, please be respectful to new people and don't take a preference to those that sign in over those that let their location be known. Actually, no birds really have hollow bones any more than any other animal has hollow bones, they just have a marrow and structure that is less dense. If you cut open a human bone, you would think of it as hollow. (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Communication section cleanup[change source]

The section on communication includes anecdotes and examples which seem too specific to species and circumstances for the main article on birds in general, in addition to having no references. It seems like this should be cleaned up some. In particular, I'm not sure what value most of the Jackdaw of Alternberg subsection provides beyond the the first sentence. Pmaccabe (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the section is fairly good. If bird communication varies greatly, then the article must be specific. And a Nobel Prize winner's observations in his field of study are notable by definition. I will add more references. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the article[change source]

The lead in two places currently states that birds "evolved from dinosaurs", which is improper wording. It would be akin to stating that humans "evolved from mammals"; though technically true, it adds an unnecessary disconnect between the two in the reader's mind, implying that humans are no longer mammals or that, in this case, birds are no longer dinosaurs.

I'd advise this be changed to "Birds (Aves) are a group of vertebrates which are the last living examples of dinosaurs" or something along the lines of what was previously written in the lead a while back.

Also, the time at which birds are said to have evolved in the lead (100 mya) does not match up with the taxobox, which states the correct 160 million years.

In addition, birds are not only descended from Archaeopteryx. Though palaeontologists generally agree it's a transitional form between non-avian and avian dinosaurs, there's nothing to indicate it's the common ancestor of all modern birds, and a couple similar species to it are known.

So I propose this wording be changed to: "Modern birds are descended from Archaeopteryx and similar animals" or "Modern birds are descended from primitive avialans like Archaeopteryx".

There's also a few issues in the Evolution and Taxonomy section: "Palaeontologists now agree that birds evolved from the Maniraptora group of dinosaurs. This explains why one might say birds are living dinosaurs."

As with the prior example, birds are included within Maniraptora, they didn't "evolve from" them. Thus "Palaeontologists now agree that birds evolved from earlier maniraptoran dinosaurs." (or similar) could be used instead. The next sentence is also rather strange and seems like probable weasel wording. Birds being dinosaurs is the current consensus among scientists[1][2][3][4][5][6][7], it's not a minority view or something "one might say" as a metaphor or example to illustrate a point.

I was going to edit the page myself and make these changes, but since this is a major article and I wanted to avoid edit conflicts and disagreements, I thought It'd be best to bring it up on the talk page. I'd recommend having a look at the English Wikipedia's Bird article (such as the Evolution and classification section and the second paragraph of the lead) as an example of how this could be worded and structured, with simpler language of course. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have any problems at all in agreeing with your interpretation. But knowing as I do what the general world-view of children is (most of our readers are children) I hesitate to go so far as you on this page. There are quite a number of areas in science where we need to tread carefully to get an account which the readership will understand and which also does justice to the science. David Attenborough (whom I have met) is very conscious of these problems, and he goes further than I would towards being comprehensible at the expense of strict accuracy. Well, I'm only one voice, and my fellow editors will soon tell me if they disagree! Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism[change source]

The page has had some extensive vandalism this year, so I'm going to protect it for a time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Bird orders?[change source]

We currenlty have all bird orders, in the taxobox. Some of them only contain a very limited number of species: The Mesitornithiformes, or Mesites, are three (near?) flightless bird species on Madagasccar. I would suggest we limit the taxobox to a few (5-10?) representative entries. If really needed, we can still have the full information in a section in the article. Thoughts?--Eptalon (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have extracted the orders. Without wanting ot get into a scientific argument: Accipitriformes (the "birds of prey") contain about 240-250 species, in about 75-80 genera. Part of these seem to inhabit the New World (hence: Old world vultures and new world vultures); the problem is that it has been proposed to move the new world vultures to Cathartiformes, which is an order that we list. We seem to be talking about 7 species in 5 genera. As a non-biologist, I cannot decide if it is owrth to split these 7 species from the remaing 240-odd in Accipitriformes. Note that the Andean Condor, one of the biggest birds is one of the 7...--Eptalon (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)