Talk:Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology)

Picture

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)

Requested move 9 April 2015

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

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)

• Oppose, as "aboriginal" does not necessarily imply "Australian". There are the Aboriginal peoples in Canada, for example. Omnedon (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Suggest instead moving to Crow (culture hero). Parenthetical disambiguations should be precise, but they should also be as concise as possible within those parameters ("Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler" per WP:DAB). So, for example, it's Georgia (country), not Georgia (post-Soviet country in the Caucasus). Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose "Aboriginal" is not restricted to Australia; and clearly in Canada is not even obviously the most likely. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - native Canadian culture requires "Australian" in the title. In ictu oculi (talk)

---

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)"

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)

• Comment are you withdrawing your previous request? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the revised proposal. See Cultural depictions of ravens (a bird also called "crow"), Common_raven#Mythology, Corvus_(genus)#Myth_and_spirituality, Corvidae#Role_in_myth_and_culture; this requested title is even more ambiguous. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - both the above, native Canadian culture requires "Australian" in the title. In ictu oculi (talk)

• But why does all that need to appear in the article title, In ictu oculi? Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• • 65.94.43.89 In ictu oculi ty both for showing clarity and I think some other articles related to religion, mythology, folklore, conceptions of the afterlife could do with similar clarification. I'll try a third attempt below. Yes I would like to withdraw previous proposals. GregKaye 14:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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)"

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)

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)

• Oppose. Crow (Australian Aboriginal culture hero) is too long. My post-Soviet state example above is not more absurd. As I suggest above, the lede, not the title, is responsible for giving the full context. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose lacking any good reason. "Just as concise but more precise" is saying too little. Dicklyon (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is stable where it is (4 years without a move) and no real reason to move has been given. I thought Kylie Minogue was an Australian culture hero anyway, or did I mean Dame Edna Everage? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic is a character of Aboriginal mythology (and yes the capital is correct, dunno what your linguistic sources can be) but not widely recognised as a cultural hero. So the request is slightly bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even more overly-WP:PRECISE than the previous nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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.