Jump to content

Talk:Flight zone

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mattdrodge. Peer reviewers: Js7581.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flight zone vs Escape distance

[edit]
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.
To merge Escape distance into Flight zone Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Reatlas. Hi. You recently changed a "for similar term" tag I placed to "distinguished from" relating to "Escape distance". I am not concerned about the edit, but want to understand more about the difference between the two terms. I am very familiar with "flight distance" and "flight zone", but not "escape distance". It appears from the article that Escape distance might relate only to behavioural responses to humans. Do you know if this is the case, and if so, can we source this distinguishing characteristic? All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on this topic, I changed the hatnote template because it seemed more appropriate to use {{distinguish}} rather than to use a "similar term" parameter in {{for}}. Although, perhaps the link should be in the See also section rather than a hatnote if the terms are unlikely to be confused. Also, from a layman's (my) point of view, this quote from the escape distance page, "The area surrounding the animal which will cause escape behavior when encroached upon is called the flight zone", seems to imply that these terms are closely linked or even synonyms, perhaps the pages should be merged? Reatlas (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not necessarily call myself an expert in this area either, although I have been working in animal behaviour for over 20 years. During that time I have heard and used "flight zone" many times but I can't recall "escape distance" being used until I saw it on Wikipedia. In my own opinion, "escape distance" is a little misleading because it could imply that the animal has been captured. In reading around the subject escape distance seems to be used mainly in relation to humans and wildlife.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was not being clear enough. Rephrase: I know totally nothing about Ethology that could not be picked up from reading Wikipedia pages. Anyway if escape distance is the same thing as flight distance except applied only to humans, then their content could probably be combined since the pages read so similar. I've added {{merge to/from}} tags to the pages, to see if there are any actual experts who would object to the move. Reatlas (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
>I have been working in animal behaviour for over 20 years. During that time I have heard and used "flight zone" many times but I can't recall "escape distance" being used until I saw it on Wikipedia.
Thats good - it means that Wikipedia is excellent source of knowledge. And very strange, because this is very known therm. There are even references in the article about Escape distance, only sample. I oppose merging these articles because they define DIFFERENT terms. There is no reason to do it. Moreover they are linked to each other. You could also merge all articles regarding flight - social distance, personal distance, critical distance and perhaps others. It would only create one unclear huge text.Darekk2 (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, so what exactly is the difference between the terms? The pages do not makes this clear as it is and they need to if they aren't going to be merged. Obviously we aren't going to merge two hugely different pages like personal distance and critical distance because those are two separate terms, from entirely separate fields. Reatlas (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. zone is an area around an animal, distance is length of the line between our animal and source of disturbance (between two points). Darekk2 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically they both refer to the area in which an animal will flee. We don't need separate pages just because the terms are marginally different. The pages have a very large overlap, bordering on duplication which are good reasons for a merge (via WP:MERGE). For example the largest section in flight zone extensively uses the term "flight initiation distance" which is listed as a synonym in the escape distance page. Can you give an example of some unique/distinct information or content that can be on one of these pages but would be inappropriate to place on the other? Reatlas (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
>section in flight zone extensively uses the term "flight initiation distance"
From several days, someone and you added such portions of text to Flight zone. I think that eventually rather these fragments should be moved to Escape distance because they are not about Flight Zone. These pages have a very large overlap because of i.e. your recent changes. Darekk2 (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a problem with that. There needs to be unique/distinct content on both pages, but save for the opening definitions, there doesn't appear to be anything in either article that could not be seamlessly moved to the other. Exempli gratia; this sentence, which happens to be one of the very few that was from before DrChrissy brought this article from stub state.

An animal can be stimulated to move simply by skirting its flight zone

can be changed to

An animal can be stimulated to move simply by skirting within its escape distance

and then this sentence can be moved to escape distance too. We just do this for all the nine sentences that were here before the "fragments" (content) was added, and then there is nothing in this article anymore, and then it becomes a redirect to Escape distance where all the content has gone and just like that, article merged. So once again I ask, if you don't think the articles should be merged, yet you think all the content should move to another page, what should be in Flight zone? Reatlas (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Maybe definition like before. These new portions of Flight zone are about Escape distance, not Flight zone and if you really want to move or merge anything, they should be moved to Escape distance. These articles can be crosslinked. Darekk2 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to discuss flight zone without also discussing flight distance because the former is dependent on the latter. The two are usd almost synonymously. People have measured flight distance as a linear quantity, but I don't recall area (flight zone) being reported (e.g. in square metres). The Escape distance article states "The escape distance (ED) of animals is the distance at which they flush or otherwise move away from certain disturbing stimuli, namely humans (my emphasis) triggering an escape response." which made me think it is a term applied only to responses to humans. If this is the case, I think we need a citation of who created the term. The references in Escape distance have a heavy emphasis on wildlife, whereas Flight zone includes all animals, including livestock where the term is very widely used internationally.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo! search I have just conducted a Yahoo! search on "Flight zone"+animal and this yielded 37,900 results whereas "Escape distance"+animals yielded only 502 results. Changing the word 'animal' to 'ethology' yields 313 and 20 results respectively. Perhaps this indicates Flight zone is the more used (recognised) term.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true:
"Flight zone" +animals 11400
"Escape distance" +animals 2860
"Flight zone" animals 12400
"Escape distance" animals 3410
The difference in Google is similar in terms of multiplicity. And it doesn't matter how many results are returned. Darekk2 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is true - I used Yahoo! UK and Ireland. Perhaps you used a different version of Yahoo!__DrChrissy (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Proxemics article rather merger?

[edit]

Rather than a merger of Flight zone and Escape distance, perhaps there should be a general article called Proxemics (animals). This could incorporate both these pages and others, e.g. Critical distance (animals).__DrChrissy (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create the proxemics (animal) page, go ahead. Since I'm know rather little about this field, I'll only merge these very similar articles into one, if you don't. Reatlas (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My only reluctance to creating a new article called Proxemics is that it is not a widely used term in ethology. I had never encountered it before Wikipedia. If you were to merge the articles, what title would you suggest?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge flight zone and critical distance (animals) escape distance into the escape distance flight zone page, then list them as alternate names in the first sentence. However, proxemics (animals) seems like a more general term for the whole field of animal social space, which I know far too little about to write or really comment on. If you can write it, I suggest being bold and just doing it. We can always rename a page later if need be. Reatlas (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be strongly against merging Flight zone into Escape distance. In my 20 years of researching and teaching animal behaviour, the term "flight zone" is widely used whereas "Escape distance" is not. Please look at the references in Escape distance - they relate only to wildlife and humans, and focus heavily on birds. The Flight zone is a much more general article on a well recognised area of ethology covering a wide range of species. Furthermore, the banners indicating the direection of merge are in the incorrect direction of your proposed merge stated above.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge direction reversed. I also retracted the move tag from the critical distance (animals) page because it appears substantially different in content. Reatlas (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2013 (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.

Sample values

[edit]

This section should be entitled "Sample values of escape distance", not "Sample values". All references are about escape distance, not flight zone. But each time I change this title, DrChrissy (talk) user reverts this. He or she does that, like it were purpose of his/her life. Moreover he/she refers to not referenced portions of the abstract article, saying that flight zone is a synonym of flight distance. What is not true, because flight zone is an area, flight distance is a linear value. And the entire section had been written on the basis of papers about escape distance, not flight zone. This lying is very pitful. Darekk2 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please be very careful about calling other editors liars - that is an extremely serious accusation. It is also very highly recommended to comment on the edit, not the editor. So, please be more careful in the future.
The first paragraph of the lead of the article states "It [flight distance] may also be termed[citation needed] escape distance, alert distance, flush distance, and escape flight distance." So, we have informed the reader that "flight distance" and "escape distance" are synonyms, which is why I have removed escape distance from the heading - it is superfluous. If you have RS that indicates the 2 terms are not synonyms, please present these here on the Talk page and we can discuss this. DrChrissy (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
> So, we have informed the reader
You have MISinformed the reader, without references in addition, using misinforemation from your head. I woul change this abstract, but you will begin a war on reverting my edits. Darekk2 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop these hostile accusations. If we (not me) have misinformed the reader, then change it with suitable RS. This is the third time I have requested this. 16:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I could remove not referenced parts not giving any references, because references for not existing data don't exist either. But this is your duty, because you spoiled that. Maybe I will do it one day, and will change the title "Sample values" to "Sample values of escape distance" again, what will be consistent with existing references and the truth again. Darekk2 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I am having a little trouble clearly understanding your message. You appear to be suggesting that you will edit war again in the future. This is not a wise thing to write on the Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight zone. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight zone. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_zone&oldid=1201362813"