Talk:Laughing kookaburra

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

Request

Why the JACKASS part of the name please?

Cannot find any explanation. Helpful responses please to E [email protected].

Posted 23JUN2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.50.5 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

What is the aboriginal name, then? And if it is best known by that, well it would have several due to its natural range extending into different language areas of aboriginal people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.29.116 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing kookaburra not its common name

I was born in Sydney, have often lived with kookaburras nested in the trees around my various homes, and have lived in Australia for 54 years, but have never heard the kookaburra called a 'Laughing kookaburra'. The article should be renamed, unless biologists use this unusual term. I'm quite sure it is commonly called by virtually all Australians (perhaps a few people differ) "a kookaburra", just as a koala is not called by Australians a 'koala bear'. Also, the second word in 'Laughing kookaburra' should have a lower case initial letter, as in 'Red kangaroo', not 'Red Kangaroo'. Maybe someone who knows how can rename the page. Alpheus (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(only almost two years late but tehre you go...) - Laughing Kookaburra is its official name - there are several species of large kingfisher called kookaburras, hence the need for differentiation in precision of article naming. I also grew up in sydney and am plenty familiar with the epithet "laughing". cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have lived in Queensland and New South Wales since the mid 1970s and have only ever once heard kookaburras referred to as "laughing jackass". That was from an octogenarian farm worker in country Queensland. I think that the term is really in the same category as "cobber", "cove", "blucher boots" (Wellington Boots), "waltzing the matilda" and other charming but now quite obsolete Australian terms. Original research I know but on quizzing several dozen friends, family and club members all agree with me entirely. --MichaelGG (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My experience matches that of MichaelGG. This is an archaic name, no longer in use. And to Casliber, who defines such an "official name"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I’ve been living in Australia, in the Perth and Melbourne regions, for over 69 years, and I’ve never heard it referred to as the laughing kookaburra, except on old news reeks got the 30’s. it’s not it’s common name. Just kookaburra cweng50 (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Just had another read of the article, and found that the constantly repeated use the the word "laughing" in the name of the bird really grates. No Australian EVER calls this bird a laughing kookaburra. It's just a kookaburra. Nobody has ever acted in this conversation, but I am going to now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried moving it, and found I can't because Kookaburra already exists as a broader description of the genus, or something. This is a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Casliber above: Laughing Kookaburra is its official name - there are several species of large kingfisher called kookaburras, hence the need for differentiation in precision of article naming. I also grew up in sydney and am plenty familiar with the epithet "laughing". Also, see WP:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles - UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UtherSRG - As somebody has already asked, who defines such an "official name"? And we really need a source for any claim that use of the word "laughing" is common. I don't believe it is. Even a few modern examples might help. I haven't seen any since my childhood, 70 years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are five species of Kookaburra as of 2023. Hence each species needs a descriptor - of course we all shorten it to "kookaburra" colloquially. But see here, here, here and here and here - the official name is "Laughing Kookaburra". A bit like the kangaroos we see on the outskirts of Sydney are eastern grey kangaroos but folks just call them "kangaroos". What we call "crows" or "ravens" in Sydney are Australian ravens. The magpies are Australian magpies and the currawongs are pied currawongs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You addressed precisely none of my concerns there. As somebody has already asked, who defines such an "official name"? And how can a term that nobody uses be regarded as the common name? HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the IOC statement here. Also the examples I pointed out show that many terms are short-hand/abbreviations - all of these life-forms have relatives with the same generic name. Also, the links to NSW gov't, Australian Museum etc. all call it "laughing kookaburra". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: You obviously didn't read the WikiProject text I linked you to. It answers your questions. But Cas Liber has said the same thing and more, but you should still read it. Naming of articles is done by consensus, and we've agreed that we will follow what the IOC lays out, as their naming is the most common naming scheme used. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't common name mean the name most people use? I haven't heard anybody call the bird a laughing kookaburra for at least 60 years. I haven't seen in print (or text), apart from here on Wikipedia, for probably the same period. And I live where the kookaburras live, on the edge of one of Australia's two biggest cities, not in some isolated place where weird linguistic things might happen. We are using a very uncommon name as the "common name" of this bird. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should just
drop the stick. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
No, because you're not actually discussing. Doesn't common name mean the name most people use? HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - "kookaburra" is ambiguous as there are five different species of kookaburra. Thus the propose title of "kookaburra" fails on precision (as you discovered when you tried to move it). Plus, can you find a source that specifies its common name is "kookaburra" and not "laughing kookaburra", because most sources state that its common name is "laughing kookaburra" as pointed out above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most don't state that it's the common name at all. There are several older sources attached to the article that call the bird a laughing kookaburra, but modern books don't. I concede that old sources used that name. Modern sources don't. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have the NSW govenrment, the Australian Museum, birdlife Australia, Victorian Government, Queensland Govt, all with ...umm...modern websites using the name as the title for the page...what sources do you have? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the books on Australian birds and animals I saw at my grandchildren's house today. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ready to
drop the stick? Or do you think there's any life left in that horse? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
While there was an attempt at humour in my comment there, which I suspect you missed, are you telling me the names used in kids' books are NOT common names? I'm beginning to see the problem here. You believe a formal naming organisation can be used for "common names". That actually makes no sense. To me, a common name is a name used by the common people, NOT a formal naming body. What you want to use as a common name is not common at all, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:CRITERIA just slightly earlier in the same policy page. As has been pointed out, there are multiple species with a common name of kookaburra; moving any one of them to just "kookaburra" is less precise and less concise. What would you have us do that is in keeping within our policies and within our Manual of Style? You have no path forward, but that horse you keep hitting isn't going to come to life and stand up. Please put down the stick. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
OK. I followed that link and read the longish first paragraph. It seems to strongly support my position - "a natural-language word" ("laughing" is NOT part of the natural language name of the bird), "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name", "it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Oh, and your obsession with sticks isn't helping. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you acknowledge there are more than one species of kookaburra? If so, do you understand the use of adjectives as describing words to assist in precision? On a similar note, we don't go around regularly saying "Newcastle, New South Wales" either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question there is actually an important one. If I saw any of those other birds that are members of other species of the kookaburra species, I probably wouldn't call them kookaburras. I probably wouldn't know what they were, but they certainly wouldn't be the birds I know as kookaburras. This is where I am going with the idea of a common name here. You want it to mean something a scientific organisation has defined. But then it's no longer a "common" name, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure 99% of people call silver gulls "seagulls without knowing of their name. Ditto eastern grey kangaroos and lace monitors ("just a goanna!"). In any case, just like language, plain English is fine unless precision is lost, in which case we use precise terms, whether it be article titles or just language in general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And then we are no longer using common names. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are - read common name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been there. Done that. We are going round in circles. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You're missing the nuance on that page about how scientists make and use common names...so that "common" in the sense of "common name" is not equivalent to the plain english adjective "common"...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common name says that in many cases it is. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But also in many cases it isn't. Do you have a suggestion for what to do differently for this species that works with the rest of the species in the genus, the genus itself, and our current policies and standards, or do you just want to complain because you don't like it? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the insults. I don't think you will find any from me here about other editors. I try very hard to avoid doing that. (If there are any, I apologise in advance and will try to remove them.) That some here feel the need to do so is telling. I am NOT complaining. I am pointing out a problem. Pointing to a non-standard definition of common name, and hurling abuse, will not make that problem go away. As the person who began this thread wrote 15 years ago, no modern Australian calls this bird the laughing kookaburra. For Wikipedia to insist that's the common name is pretty incongruous. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave no insult, but I apologize since you obviously feel insulted. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha ha ha. So "do you just want to complain because you don't like it?" wasn't an insult? I recommend you stop talking about me, and stick to discussing what I write. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if pointing out that you are using an argument that doesn't hold water here is an insult, I don't know what to say. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the person who began this thread 15 years ago was also using an argument that doesn't hold water? HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The both of you are making a point based on subjective and anecdotal experience, which is fair enough. And I am explaining the expanded background. And you're not accepting it. So I am not sure what else to say from here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'raucous laughter'?

I'm sure that's what it sounds like to humans, but they are not laughing. And 'ringing laughter' likewise. As is said earlier in the article, it is a matter of establishing its territory. In fact, I'm not even sure birds are capable of humor. More accurate would be to say: they emit a vocalisation which sounds like laughter. And obviously establishing one's territory is no laughing matter, I imagine. Vince (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I think the quotes around 'laugh' do enough to establish that this word is being used as a metaphor, rather than as a statement of the cognitive capabilities of birds. Redoubts (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty notable and distinctive call well-likened to laughing by many, still, quotes is ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I didn't notice the quotes before. I guess my main problem with that section is that it's a bit subjective, the adjectives 'raucous' and 'ringing'. And its written a bit, how should I put it, affectionately. Don't get me wrong, I like these birds too, I like the fact that there's one in my backyard right now, but encyclopedic text should stick to the facts and be emotionless, right? Just a suggestion. Vince (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of snakes, exactly?

Thanks. 66.65.141.221 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Not sure and worth looking into. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About 20 cm long snakes, also well known for stealing sausages. They move their heads quickly to bang the snake against a branch. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that

chat} 17:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Laughing Kookaburra
The
Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) is a carnivorous bird in the kingfisher family. Native to eastern Australia, it has also been introduced to parts of New Zealand, Tasmania and Western Australia. Male and female adults are similar in plumage, which is predominantly brown and white. A common and familiar bird, this species of kookaburra is well known for its laughing call.Photo: JJ Harrison
Archive – More featured pictures...
Any chance of getting more warning next time? It is already well into March 7th in Australia. --99of9 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been behind in writing these, but you're really looking at March 7th UTC, not local time. —
chat} 07:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laughing_kookaburra&oldid=1208107430"