Jump to content

Talk:Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture

[edit]

The article is illustrated by a very fine photo of the Australian Raven (Corvus Coronoides). However, there are four endemic crow-like birds in Australia, which go by the common names:

  1. Australian Crow
  2. Little Australian Crow
  3. Australian Raven
  4. Little Australian Raven

Is it clear which of these four species is meant by Wahn in the Aboriginal mythology?

yoyo (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 April 2015

[edit]

"Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)" → "Crow (Aboriginal culture hero)"

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nominator withdrew [1] request

Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)Crow (Aboriginal culture hero) – If we say "Aboriginal" then I think that saying "Australian" is a bit superfluous. Culture hero is as per WP:Precise and the same applies to a move from "mythology". Definitions may alternatively involve folklore and faith / superstition. GregKaye 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should also be as concise as will provide optimal utility of the title? While not wanting to make any connection to the current issue, IMO Wikipedia can sometimes be a cult of the concise dogmatic reiterations of the point ever present in project pages.
As a more relevant example, while Britannica presents a content under, I think, the more generously titling Apis (Egyptian god), we use a less descriptive but undeniably concise Apis (god) . They commonly use a similar content in titling as shown in titlings such as Zeus (Greek god). I interpret the situation in that have a relatively higher emphasis on the precise while we have a relatively higher emphasis on the concise and I do not think that this is always necessarily a good thing. GregKaye 07:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nominator's proposed title. I agree that the title needs to be changed, but it does not make sense to go from one title with an overly-precise disambiguator to another title with an overly-precise disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is simply whether wording adds to or subtracts from utility. Its a small point but precision, when compatible with recognition and other relevant guideline content, is always good. GregKaye 07:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I agree with you, Greg, but the way you're applying the principle opens the way to absurdities (viz. Crow (Australian Aboriginal culture hero)). An article's title doesn't need to give all the context; in fact, it should elicit the response "Huh?" to the totally uninitiated. Think about it: somebody who knows nothing of Nepali geography would look at the title Tulsipur, Rapti and not know what to make of either name; in the same way, somebody who knows nothing of American geography would look at the title Galena, Illinois and have no idea. The lede, not the title, should give enough background so that things start to make sense. Q·L·1968 18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Resubmission: "Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)" → "Crow (culture hero)"

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

nominator withdrew [2] request

Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)Crow (culture hero) – In light of the above I would still think that "Aboriginal" could add relevant information as a parallel to wording such as traditional. None the less ".. (Culture hero)" works.

Ping: Omnedon, Q·L·, Steel1943, 65.94.43.89

GregKaye 07:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Suggest "Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)" → "Crow (Australian Aboriginal culture hero)"

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)Crow (Australian Aboriginal culture hero) – Linguistically I think "Aboriginal" should be "aboriginal" but use in scholar regularly uses the capitalised version. "Cul-ture her-o" is just about as concise as "myth-o-lo-gy" but more precise. GregKaye 13:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q·L· Fair enough but syllables wise there is no difference. Britannica has related titlings such as hero (literary and cultural figure) and many others are far longer still. GregKaye 18:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.