Talk:Bluebuck

Improvement

Hi Sainsf, I thought it could be good to continue to discuss how to further improve the article here, so others can see it as well. The main problem is that there is a lot of unsourced text. I fear most of this is based on the German source? If that's the case, all we can do is to either find the sources that the German sourced itself refers to, find alternate sources, or to drastically reduce the text here... I think you have seen more relevant sources than I have, how does it look? And is there anything about this species in the more general books about African animals that you have used as source in other articles? FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Taxonomy, Description, Distribution and Extinction sections look fine. I think we will have to get access to the foreign language sources or remove the unsourced text from Description and Distribution, as I have found no source yet to support those lingering claims. That should not be much of a loss though, we already have a lot of info in there. The trouble is in Ecology, as there is hardly anything to go upon here. I have a paper or two with me, I will look at them and try to add any tidbit I can. I think I read in a few sources that the bluebuck's behaviour should resemble that of roan's and sable's, so we can substantiate on that. About other books, I have been unsuccessful so far (I rely mainly upon Google Books), and many of those books focus only on extant species. But if the book Mammals of the South African subregion could help with Quagga it might have an account of a similar species as this. The book The Bluebuck, Hippotragus leucophaeus by Erna Mohr would be greatly helpful. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so Mohr's book exists in English? I thought it was only in German? My German isn't good enough for technical text, I'm afraid... FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that was just the translated title. It's only in German. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Luckily, I have access to a 2013 paper that has interesting ideas on its ecology and habitat preferences – check the recent additions to the article. Though we may have to leave out details of herd structure... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Alright, so let me clarify some points (as per this revision [1])

• We do not have access to Mohr's book or the sources in refs. 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 34 yet. We need to think which of them can be requested.
• Presently I will go ahead and use the rest of the sources, to which you, I or both of us have access, so that the article has been expanded as much as possible at the moment.
• There is a lot of stuff in Ecology and Description which I believe is based on the refs in point 1 or guesswork (comparing the behaviour with that of roan or sable). Most of it was added by Kwagga Fontein some 8 years ago.

Hmmm, I think there's little chance of that user returning, then... Have you seen the http://www.blueantelope.info page? It seems to be a good "guideline" for what could be included... It also has a bibliography:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Will take a look. That user appears to have had access to the sources we don't have. If they don't return, we should delete the material as it is all unsourced since 8 years. There is really nothing we are waiting for before GAN if there is no scope of getting the sources in the near future, we have tried our best to cover the animal. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think we can just go ahead and nuke all the unsourced stuff (perhaps the subheaders under behaviour can be removed too, because the sections will be very small)... I'll go ahead and look at the sources I have, then I'll read over the article and see if I can add or improve anything, then I think we can GAN tomorrow? FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Either of us can do the cleanup, just nuke all the "citation needed" stuff. I added them and combined unsourced paras, it ask looked so unpleasantly choppy. Let me work one last time with my sources, and we can go for GAN today or tomorrow. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Now seems there are only some bits under description and habitat that end without sources, are they nukable? FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take care of them. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I have completed my work on the article. Added a few left out bits and a whole lot of synonyms. I deleted the unsourced parts and lines from ambiguous or inaccessible sources. The article is in a pretty good shape. Would you write the lead? I don't know how to write it the best for an extinct animal. And of course, you know best how to deal with images! Just go through all of it once again and check if everything is in order. Then we can co-nominate it! Will return tomorrow. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup! I'll see if I can add anything more also. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently reading through the article and copy-editing, and found some nice images (including huge version of the type specimen drawing), and all looks good so far, apart from one issue; the number of existing skin specimens varies from four to five depending on the sources, and our article is inconsistent in its claim... It seems it is Stockholm that is the outlier... Have you seen any recent source that states the number of specimens and their museums? (Edit: seems this is answered in the 1992 source, will fix) Also, the following info is only found in the intro, is it supported by anything? "European settlers hunted it avidly, despite its flesh being distasteful, while converting its habitat to agriculture." Without this, it seems our article almost clears humans of blame? FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Another issue I just noticed, seems Mohr worked from a mistranslated version of Kolbe's book, so that the supposed "first illustration of the bluebuck" actually showed a greater kudu, which explains the differences (see 1975 article). This also means that most of the middle paragraph under description should be nuked... FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, and a whole nother issue again, there seems to be inconsistency in what is the largest specimen... The 1959 source says the Leiden specimen, though the 1894 source says Paris (even though its measurement is much less). Furthermore, the info about horn length of the Paris and Hunterian specimens are sourced to the 1959 article, but do not actually seem to be measured in it? Seems a mistake has been made somehow, maybe it's from the 1894 source... Also, some of the horn measurements start with the inches, whereas the rest start with cms... FunkMonk (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the 1894 source, it seems that in and cm have simply been swapped around in the article's convert templates... FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. I will once again check the sources to see what came from where, all this shifting and nuking may have distorted a few things. So far the most recent sources are Rookmaaker 1992 and Robinson 1996. I think we should follow the figures in the recent sources and try to hunt down how and when what remains were found and where they are now... I think I will take a few hours for that. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Let's first resolve the inconsistency in the number of remains. I think you can now take care of the part where we describe the preserved remains, you would do better at it.

• The oldest source, 1894, says "H. leucophaeus must be regarded as an extinct animal, of which at the present time five mounted specimens only are known to exist in museums of (our list of the 5 places)" + one pair (frontlet) of horns (Natural History Museum London).
• The 1959 source says "there are only five mounted skins (in the five locations listed in the article) + one skull (Hunterian Museum) + one pair of horns (London)". I'm not sure what it means by "length of horns on the curve", perhaps the horn length actually.
• Mohr publishes a list in 1967 giving 4 skins + 2 horn pairs + 4 skulls. Of the skulls two (from Berlin) appear to have been misidentified as bluebuck skulls, another (destroyed in 1941) could have been a roan's (per Mohr), and the Hunterian one, with unknown origins, may have been a sable's. The new pair of horns (from Albany Museum, South Africa) appears to have been a roan's as well. (All this from the 1992 source.)
• The 1992 source gives an idea of four specimens except the Uppsala specimen (not Stockholm, seems Uppsala now has just a horn pair as the skin was destroyed in late 19th century) + a new skull at Amsterdam (also see Groves 1995 source) + a new horn pair from Cape Town + a hint of an old skin.

• Kolbe's account should of course be mentioned by us, as do other sources as it is supposed to be the "first" one to illustrate bluebuck. The part in Description can be removed, let's just limit its mention to a few lines in Taxonomy indicating that this translation might have caused all the misinterpretation, as is evident from inconsistencies (you had better manage this taxonomy and discovery stuff). Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I tried rewording the 2nd para of Decline and extinction, now it should be clear that after the mass extinction and subsequent decline (described in Distribution and habitat) very few bluebuck were left, and the European settlers hunted even those and this led to extinction. I wonder if we should rename the section as "Extinction", as much of "Decline" is already discussed in the earlier section. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• About the inconsistency in specimen sizes, I could not find anything in the 1992 account that only deals with historical facts. So let's keep saying "according to X this is the largest, while Y says that is the largest". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, I'll fix the specimen stuff later today or tomorrow. I think we can remove "decline" for the section title as well. As for the measurements, the problem is that the Sclater source gives its measurements in inches only, yet those measurements are placed as if they were cms in the conversion templates here, which gives too small sizes... For example, "45 centimetres (18 in)"[3] is actually 45 inches... So I guess we have to first figure out what 45 inches is in cms, and then write that in the template... It appears to be 114.3 cm... I'll take a look at the 1975 stuff again later and see how to deal with Kolbe (he described both the bluebuck and the greater kudu, but the Kolbe text we have under description seems to refer to his text about the kudu, with a beard, described as "strange", etc.), it should of course be mentioned he was the first to write about it, I just don't know if the text under description is actually supposed to be about the bluebuck or the kudu... After these things, I'll write the final intro. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No pal, just use the parameter "|order=flip" in each such erroneous measurement and see the wonders. I did it with the one you fixed, just to keep the source measurement intact. Don't drain your editing powers! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, you kids and your future technology! Can feel I'm nearing thirty, where's my typewriter? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Come on grandpa, you ain't be more than ten years older than us babies! And don't forget your glasses! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ouw, low-blow, I've had glasses since I was 11! Anyway, I'll fix the above, and I also saw more information in Sclater that I'll add, then the intro, and then I hope I've finally done my part of the writing, took me a while to get going... But this article is a good start to get back at writing new stuff... FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, even I have glasses. And I really miss reviewing your articles, how dare you not write! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Awww, seems the flip parameter only takes the same inch number and treats it as representing cm instead, so "45 centimetres (18 in)" became "18 inches (45 cm)"... Might check the horn distance as well, "spaced 3.85 metres (152 in) apart" seems a bit much? FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? When I fixed that 6.1 in, I wrote {{convert|6.1|in|cm|order=flip}}. So if it is 45 inches write {{convert|45|in|cm|order=flip}}. That 3.85 m sent me into a lol, fixed it anyway. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Any one of us must fix all those errors in Description. I think I should, as I have added it all and I seem to have worked more with the convert templates. You may be unnecessarily troubling yourself... You had better fix the other parts. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So are they errors after all, or did I do something wrong? I instead just added the numbers I got when converting 45 and 40 in to cm through online conversion, haven't figured out how to do it with templates... FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yay, got the bugs! [4] Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice, so what did you do differently? I'm really bad with numbers... FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the number to be converted as, say, 45. From inches to centimetres. Write it in the typical way. If I insert flip now, all it does is convert as always and then put 45 inches come second on display instead of, as usual, the converted number. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Now I'm adding the last information from Slater and Thomas (some description and historical taxonomy), and then I should be able to finish the intro. But there is still one problem, which is the Kolbe paragraph I've now relegated to the last part of description. First, I can't find the info in the source listed (Pennant), second, it might be based on the kudu (according to the 1975 source), and third, I don't really think a long discussion of an erroneous description is adequate under that section... FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Too many edit conflicts Great. I think the sources got jumbled up in that part. Yes, it is the 1975 source, now that we know it is erroneous it would be right to delete it. But keep the Pennant one, that appears authentic and the source listed for it is correct. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, now separated. Since we now have a pretty small culture section, I was thinking we could maybe elaborate on the supposed meaning of the rock paintings? FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I have some access to that article through JSTOR, will look it up in a minute... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is really confusing for me in the "trance" part, perhaps this is all they want to say, the paintings are "depictions of trancing Bushmen visiting the spirit world through a tunnel that, in some instances, started at the walls of rock shelters". I think we have said enough in the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Two more things, when is Sclater and Thomas book from? In the citations it says 1899, but in the text, we say 1894? And another thing, this image of different antelope heads[5] shows H. leucophaeus with a stripe over its eye, even though the bluebuck was not supposed to have that... Could it perhaps be a roan antelope instead? It seems some authors thought them synonymous... FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the intro is about done now, and I've listed the article for copy-edit while we wait for reviews. We can nominate as soon as you think. Another question, the quagga IUCN source seems a bit weird, "Antelope Specialist Group"? Do we even need that source, or do the adjacent source not mention the quagga? FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, checked and found that 1899 is correct for this volume. Not sure about that image, these old illustrations are often confusing and wrongly named. The quagga source is its IUCN page, which is one of the most reliable sources used in mammal articles. I didn't find other sources giving quagga a significant mention, except the 1959 one. I'll just take another look, then we can nominate this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we go ahead and nominate it? I think any small remaining issues can be taken care of while we wait for a review... FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the GOCE page says "If you plan to nominate the article for good article, A-class or featured article status, please wait until the copy edit is complete before nominating it." Not sure if it means don't nominate it while the copyedit is on... unless I misunderstood it or something, it's an aye from me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've had copy-editors edit while I was at FAC even, so hasn't been a problem. Also, we might have to wait for a while to get a review anyway, since none of us two can review it, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine, which of us is gonna do it? I think you should, people must be thinking you have gone extinct at GAN ;) I'm settling down to wait a year for review, you can hibernate :D Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added both our names, actually... Seems most people don't know it's even possible... Yeah, the down-side with co-nomination is that there are less potential reviewers as a result, but the good thing is that you can then have two FACs up at the same time... Oh, and I kind of regret starting this discussion here, next time I'll keep it on a user talk-page, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And I am one of those "most people". See grandpa, u knowz a thing or two better than us babies! And you should have known by now how voraciously we can chat! But this will be more interesting than the article to readers, I bet! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

At least for those who like to see behind the scenes of how an article is written! By the way, I think we should have the Mohr book under further reading, since we don't cite it... Just have to find it in the old revisions! FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mohr book is not in the prior article history. I did add to further reading a translation of an article by her. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I might even use it as a source in the article... Oh, and thanks for all the source clean-up, seems those dead external links can just be removed... FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Added the Möhr book. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, those dead links might still exist at Internet archive? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think most of them are of much use anyway... Sainf, are you sure that pronunciation guide isn't only for the Afrikaans version of the name? Also, I don't think having a bit of etymology in the intro hurts (especially when there is so little to write about anyway), have had that in other articles. And seems we're getting a copy-edit soon, so we should probably keep hands off for a while! FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• On a break, Sainsf? Might be time for FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah FunkMonk not active here nowadays. But go on nominate this for FAC, both of us are there to work on this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do! I'll take a stab at the "blurb", and add your name... Want to be on the FAC as well, User:7&6=thirteen? FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Will help anyway a really old contributor can. I learned to type on a Remington manual typewriter. So your age comparisons pale by comparison. What do you need? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Heheh, last time I touched a typewriter was when I destroyed my mom's as a kid! I could imagine that there would be some citation nitpicking during the FAC, as there always is in my experience, and you seem to be the expert on that of us three... FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do have some knowledge about WP:Citation templates. Happy to help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would like to note 2 things: 1.The specimen in Stockholm is a young male (as stated in Rookmaaker 1992 and as further explained in the supplements of Hempel et al. 2021) not a female. 2. in the "further reading" section it should say "Mohr" not "Möhr".

Sounds plausible, feel free to amend if you can cite it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to mention in the text that the nilgai is also often called bluebuck which can be confusing. I am not sure where this would fit best. Refleep (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation format

If it were up to me I would put in a list of sources and use SFN. WP:CITEVAR requires that I ask first. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What is that, is that when you have to list the sources separately from the article? Personally, I don't like that, because it is a big hassle to add new sources after the change (adding them seperately to the ref sections and to the article body); I still have problems on dodo and Rodrigues solitaire after someone changed the style without asking (would like it all changed back)... But perhaps Sainsf has other ideas. Perhaps there is some automated way of doing it easier. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, once you become used to using SFN it is really easy And it benefits the readers. It is cleaner and more direct. Plus plugging in the pages works very well. Take a look at Yank Levy and Tom Rees (Airman). But I asked, and it's your call. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that article only uses it for the book sources, though? We mainly have journal sources in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have never used anything other than cite templates for my articles, but I am willing to learn new styles. FunkMonk seems to have a better experience with this though, perhaps he should handle this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is a way to do it where you don't have to do "double-work" when adding a citation (automated?), I'd have no problem with it. But the way I've seen it done before, you do have to add the same citation "twice", and if there's something I want to get over with as soon as possible when working on articles, it's the citations... Mainly a problem with subjects where new studies just keep coming, such as the dodo... Yes, it might look better, but it really sucks the joy out of editing for me... FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We have just 3 book sources here, but I see Lion uses it just for 5 book sources... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We could do journals, but we there is no rule saying we have to. I'll do the books, and we can see how it looks. By inches and increments. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer only the books then. Groves, C.; Westwood, C.R. (1995) is a journal article, not a book... FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay with me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Books are done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bluebuck/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Will review now, sorry for letting you wait for so long! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is a image labled "Late 1700s illustration by Robert Jacob Gordon, possibly showing the Paris skin", but this guy is not mentioned in the text (neither is the image).

I won't be able to edit until Sunday, but that info is in the 1992 source I think, in case... FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, he is just one of several people who illustrated the various skins, so I made a general note... But do you mean you would want a source in the caption? FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. No, I just think that people (like me) may get confused, since the text might come across like a thorough account of historical depictions. A general note that there are several skin-based illustrations from the 1700s would be great. Alternatively, what about adding "one of several skin illustrations of the late 1700s" to the image caption? However, this is only a very minor point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a sentence in my earlier edit t. As for the caption, since there are already several 18th century images in the article based on specimens, I think it would be stating the obvious? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• In 1974 palaeoanthropologist Richard G. Klein showed that the bluebuck and roan antelope occurred sympatrically on the coastal plain of the southwestern Cape from Oakhurst to Uniondale during the early Holocene, supporting their separate status. – I do not understand the argument, why does this mean they are separate genera? More information might be helpful here.

Only separate species (opposed to mere subspecies), not genera. Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• more to come later --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try to get to these soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• He also suggested that the length of the bluebuck's hair and the morphology of its horns formed a link between antelopes and goat. – "Goats" instead of "goat"? Can this be formulated more precisely? Does he infer that antelopes and goats are closely related because of this feature?

• He wrote This is the species which, from the length of its hair and form of the horns, connects this genus with that of the Goat. He is not very clear what connection they have, so we simply wrote "link". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I think the problem is that this information is within the "Description" section, so the reader will expect facts about the appearance of the animal. To be a useful fact, this information is way to inaccurate. It is of course interesting from a historical point of view, so what about transforming it as a quotation?

Would like to know FunkMonk's idea on this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, personally I think the goat part could be removed... Or if anything, it might be more relevant in the taxonomy section? FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No harm in keeping it, but if Jens Lallensack wants it out of Description then the best place for it is in Taxonomy. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• from the western coast (fossils from the western coast dating to this period are scarce but have been recorded from the southern coast). – The western and eastern coast of what? It could be more precisely stated which geographical regions are referred to.

• We are talking only about South Africa in this section, so the coast refers to the coast of that country. The source does not name geographical locations significant enough to mention. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. There is still a small language issue: "fossils from the western coast dating to this period are scarce but have been recorded from the southern coast" – Fossils from the western coast have been recorded from the southern coast?

Whoops, fixed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• as low sea levels facilitated migrations for large mammals – This is difficult to imagine, more precise information on the paleogeography would be helpful here. Were the animals migrating from one plain to the other along the coast, which both populations being separated due to sea level rise and some kind of barrier in between?

• How does this look? [6] Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All in all, this is an excellent article, and very nicely written, I hope to see this at FAC soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I will get to these later today. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Bluebuck --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Reason for this animal's common name

Putting in the reason for why this animal is called "blueback" would help make htis article more informative.Sexperson 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexperson (talk • contribs)

It was bluish, as the article already states. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Original" Afrikaans

The creature became extinct around 1800. Afrikaans became an accepted written language around 1840-50. First sources and etymology must therefore be Dutch or German, not Afrikaans. 184.101.231.235 (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That kinda doesn't make sense. Afrikaans already existed long before it was recognized and became an official language of South Africa. That's obvious when you look at the other spelling variants, all of which are Non-Standard Dutch. Neither does anything preclude modern Afrikaans-speakers from giving a name to an extinct animal native to their regions, that then became the source of the English name. Either way, don't really care much, just saying.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Afrikaans had obviously diverged from Dutch long before it was "accepted". Also, not sure if this related to an IP spelling the Africaans name in another way, but we should stick to the spelling in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no such word as 'blaubok' in modern Afrikaans. 'Blaubok' is archaic. The modern spelling is 'bloubok' (for proof, consult any modern Afrikaans dictionary). The pronounciation as indicated is thus also incorrect. I unfortunately don't know how to write the correct pronounciation according to IPA. pronounced //'bəlouːbɔk// is my guess. Klipfontein (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, to include that here, we need a reliable source that states it is the modern spelling. We also have recent sources (1995, 1975) that spell it "blaauwbok". FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think sticking to the sources would be best for now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems there is something to it, the Afrikaans article is at "Bloubok", the Dutch one is at "Blauwbok". But yeah, we need some authoritative source. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)