Little penguin is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
There's a whole exhibit in San Diego with about 20 of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.56.145.10 (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled
i kinda like that it has a lot of informations but it does not get to the point of the notes. :) :(
All right, who logged into my account and vandilized Little Blue Penguins?
Targon142 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"The birds, which many tourists find irresistibly cute, are Victoria's most popular tourist attraction[citation needed]". Citation needed alright. The
I visited Phillip Island in July 2003 and saw a penguin parade. It was awesome. (Be sure to bring warm clothes if you go.) We were told the reason photographs are not allowed is because the flash-lights from cameras cause blindness in these penguins. That is equivalent to a death sentence. --tess 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At Phillip Island, south-east of Melbourne, a viewing area has been set up to allow tourists to view the nightly "penguin parade". Lights and concrete stands have been erected to allow visitors to see but not photograph the birds interacting in their colony, which they do with a total lack of interest in their spectators. The birds, which many tourists find irresistibly cute, are one of Victoria's most popular tourist attractions[citation needed]. Tourists to Perth in Western Australia can also make the short trip to Penguin Island to see the penguins and observe their normal behaviour. The Oamaru Blue Penguin Colony[3] is the New Zealand equivalent to Phillip Island's penguin parade.
This entire section does not belong here, this denotes human behviour not penguin. In addition, it is little more than spam for a commercial tourism venture. Thirdly, the writing is pitiful. For example, "which many tourists find irresistibly cute", this is subject nonsense which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
Subspecies
Is there an classification for subspecies? Snowman (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maori Wikipedia?
I'm not sure what the logic of the Maori name of the bird is -- in the English language version of Wikipedia -- unless it is sometimes used in English, or conveys (with translation) some interesting cultural information about how the bird is viewed by the native population.
Will you also include about 20 south coast Australian Aboriginal names?
Will every Canadian animal listed in a Wikipedia article give the French name as well -- and of course about 100 native names?
The fact that New Zealand is a bilingual country doesn't turn Wikipedia into a bilingual encyclopedia when a New Zealand subject comes up.
This is a kind of assertive Maori nationalism that isn't appropriate in a neutral forum like Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.209.120 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a kind of assertive Maori nationalism that isn't appropriate in a neutral forum like Wikipedia.[reply]
The rational is that many New Zealand birds are commonly referred to by their Maori names in New Zealand by Pakeha (or non-Maori). Lots of Kiwis, including biologists, use them, and as such they can legitimately considered alternative English names as well, at least in English speaking New Zealand. This is not quite as common in Canada or Australia. (The extent to which this is true varies for different species, the Purple Swamp-hen is for example almost universally known as the Pukeko, but rather less people know that the Tieke is the Saddleback. Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you the Maori name for the Little Penguin, although it is more commonly called the Blue Penguin here) Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ear Covert ?
Excuse my ignorance, but what on earth does it mean by "ear covert" in the description section?
Thank you.
Lil.chocoholic.62 (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feathers on the head that cover(t) the ear opening. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sea World penguins.
Sad and all, but is it sufficiently interesting or important to note here? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naming controversy
Er, why is there not a section about Australian PC wowsers deciding in their infinite wisdom that the term Fairy penguin is supposedly offensive to small winged people or some such rot? The term Fairy penguin has quietly gone out of the media over the past couple of years for patently ridiculous reasons. 210.9.143.86 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the intro of the article. It was a big deal at the time, so I agree it should be mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have an online cite, but I did have a reference to the published article in newspaper print for verification. The only online link I found has been deleted, almost as if the paper didn't want the story to exist anymore. Hmm. SJ2571 (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not correct that this occurred. Little Penguin was John Gould's original name for the species and "Fairy Penguin" was his original name for the Tasmanian subspecies. When taxonomists found that the Tasmanian and mainland birds were the same, the oldest name was given precedence, as is taxonomic convention, and so Little Penguin was accepted. There are still many birds in Australia with Fairy in their name - Fairy Tern, Fairy Gerygone, Fairy Prion, Fairy Martin, and all of the Fairywrens. Not to mention various Boobies, scrubtits and shrike-tits. There is a great book published by CSIRO called "Australian Bird Names" by Ian Fraser and Jeannie Gray that covers all this. Owheelj (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political correctness
Why is fairy penguin redirected to little penguin rather than the other way round? Fairy penguin is most certainly the more common term. --121.44.209.93 (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Little Penguin is the IOC name, and we use the IOC name. What would be politically incorrect about using or not using Fairy Penguin anyway? Do the wee folk have a history of discrimination? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 18:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "allowed" to call them Wee Folk anymore... --Kurtle (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —
Talk to my owner:Online 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Little penguin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I love the cute little penguins, but I have no idea where they live! I would put a range map myself, but I do not have it. Thank you if you put one for me. --TheWikiSearcher (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand road sign
I have uploaded a photo of a "penguins crossing" road sign in Breaker Bay, Wellington to Commons, if it's of use to the article:
There's a new exhibit at the Birch Aquarium in San Diego featuring these little guys, but Ive never edited wikipedia and don't know how. Maybe someone else could? 2600:1700:A020:970:1487:C35A:92D9:9266 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problems following the "splitting off" of Australian little penguin article
As a previously major contributor to this article, I discovered today that much of my work had been migrated over to the Australian little penguin (Eudyptula novaehollandiae) article. There are some problems with the migration, for example, the "threats" section, which now makes it seem as though there are neglible threats to Little penguins in NZ. This is clearly not the case. Hasty editing has seen information carved out from this article which should have been retained. Anyone interested in either species will need to read both articles to ensure they don't miss any misplaced information. I don't have time to attend to this right now, so am leaving this note here for the benefit of other editors should they wish to visit sections of the Australian article and restore lost/misplaced content to the correct article. --~~~~ Danimations (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
It appears that I performed this split back in May 2022, well over a year ago by now. The concerns you express above are completely valid. I respond in more detail in the thread below. Columbianmammoth (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. TRL (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the IOC vs other lists, only the TiF (Taxonomy in Flux) Checklist recognizes it as a separate species. The main problem is that we cannot even confirm its correct scientific name. I'll give a detailed explanation. ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 00:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Banks et al. (2002), the population in Otago is the nominate; it is closely related with E. m. novaehollandiae, the Australian race. The other four subspecies form a separate clade, and E. m. albosignata was described earliest among them. Therefore, the separate clade should be named E. albosignata, or referred to by its common name,
white-flippered penguin
.
Both IOC and Clements/eBird agree on its subspecies assignments.
Peucker et al. (2009) proposed that within the traditionally defined geographic range of E. albognata, individuals of both clades could be found. And all six traditionally defined subspecies are paraphyletic.
Grosser et al. (2015) agreed that the Australian race and Otago race are distinct from others. While it proposed that E. minor 's holotype belongs to the New Zealand clade. Therefore the NZ clade should retain the name E. minor. The Australian and Otago clade should be named E. novaehollandiae.
subspecies
novaehollandiae
minor
albosignata
iredalei
variabilis
chathamensis
Banks et al., 2002
little penguin E. minor
white-flippered penguin E. albosignata
IOC
little penguin E. minor
split of White-flippered Penguin not yet warranted
Clements/eBird/BOW
little penguin E. minor
Race albosignata often considered a distinct species.
Peucker et al.,2009
ASENZ clade
NZO clade
Grosser et al.,2015
Australian little penguin E. novaehollandiae
little penguin E. minor
Obviously, the two clades and their ranges are clear and without controversy. The main issue lies in the subspecies assignment of the holotype, which will determine the names of the two clades. I believe this is beyond Wikipedia's scope. Either DNA sequencing of the holotype is required, or the ICZN Committee needs to implement a name conservation. ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 00:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that these three articles actually existed at the same time. That's incredible. ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 01:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the articles should not be split until the ICZN Committee resolves the naming controversy, or until the main ornithology authorities recognize it. Otherwise, I think both articles should be renamed. ——🦝 The InteraccoonaleWill be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 03:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. We follow IOC, even in cases where both the other major checklists disagree with it; in a case like this, there is literally no reason to diverge from IOC, especially since there is no other established consensus on how to treat this complex. AryKun (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had carried out this merge back in 2018 but it was quickly undone, and I didn't feel like fussing about it. My reasoning was nowhere near as detailed - I essentially thought the population didn't require a separate article for purposes of concision - but that hasn't changed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. It appears that I preformed the edits under discussion well over a year ago. On 12 May 2022 I restored the article
. I made several other edits to the articles in question in May and June 2022.
As I recall, I merged
White-flippered penguin and split off Eudyptula novaehollandiae to match what I perceived to be the most up-to-date taxonomy in the literature. I also thought I was rectifying problems of internal inconsistency within Wikipedia. On 12 May 2022 I indicated in the edit history of Eudyptula novaehollandiae that the Australian clade is treated as a separate species by the articles Penguin and Eudyptula (which is still the case today), despite not being recognized by Little penguin. I also mention this consistency problem in an invisible comment at the top of Eudyptula novaehollandiae
, which is still there today.
Despite this clear problem of internal consistency, I am not prepared to defend this taxonomy, since the users above provided a robust argument for merging these articles back on 10 August and 11 September 2023. Instead, I say "conditional support," since my support for the merge is theoretically contingent on you fixing problems of internal consistency elsewhere on Wikipedia, including the problems in the articles Penguin and Eudyptula that I noticed back in May 2022.
You might want to merge both
White-flippered penguin as a redirect page just like it is today. In this scenario, Little penguin would be the only article about this topic. However, you would still need to edit the article Penguin
to clarify that the status of Eudyptula novaehollandiae as a separate species is disputed and currently not supported by the IOC.
Lastly, you might want to read the comment above by user Danimations from 26 October 2022. Columbianmammoth (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several papers more recent than any of the papers mentioned by user Interaccoonale on 10 August 2023 use the name Eudyptula novaehollandiae. You mention Grosser et al. 2015. I also see papers from 2016,[1] 2019,[2] 2020,[3] 2021,[4] and 2022[5] that use the name Eudyptula novaehollandiae. Whether or not you end up performing the merge, this fact should be mentioned in the article's lead. Columbianmammoth (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The authoritative Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand (5th edition, 2022) recognizes one species: the little penguin (Eudyptula minor). it recognizes two subspecies that occur in New Zealand: the New Zealand little penguin (Eudyptula minor minor) and Australian little penguin (Eudyptula minor novaehollandiae), the latter being a more recent arrival to the country.[6]
Knowing little about the scientific classifications, I have just been confused when I came to the Little penguin article. SPRAT only shows Eudyptula minor — Little Penguin. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
