As interesting as the uncertain etymology of Penguin is, I don't think that this kind of lengthy etymology belongs in an article about the bird. Citizendium is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. If the word's history is really substantial enough to merit treatment, then an entry for Penguin (word) ought to be created. That's what I'm going to do, for now. Russell Potter 06:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
I think one angle we could have on this article would be to point out that, technically, penguins can fly - through water. Their physiology is different from 'true' flightless birds, in that their wings act as fins rather than appear as vestigial limbs. Also, I believe penguins' ancestors could fly. John Stephenson 20:45, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I thought that since the first paragraphs are quite general, and only mention one species (the emperor penguin), that type should feature first. I have demoted Russell's gentoo to a supporting role (sorry), but it can be moved anywhere once we have more content. John Stephenson 03:17, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
"in popular culture"
John, I apologize for not leaving an explanation. And I am grateful to you for fixing the references and the improvements that you have made in the article. This is a biology article, and in Citizendium -although if there was an individual Penguin who achieved fame- like Balto did- who is mentioned in Dog, we do not mix in images of animals in popular culture - or the significance of penguins in Freudian analysis or any other completely unrelated discussion of the animal. Since the word itself is pertinent, and since your effort was going to be deleted, I suggested including it. We want to encourage participation and I know that I can work with that section "the word Penguin" so that it includes a synthesis of sources. But the whole Wikipedian convention of including every aspect that might be free-associated to "Animal X" in the Animal X article is not the convention at Citizendium. If you want to write that "Popular culture" riff as a separate article that could be in the media workgroup, or some other work group- fine, but I would discuss it with an editor there. Please remove that section one way or the other. It has no place in this Biology workgroup article and that is true of every Biology article on a species or kind of animal (or plant). By the way- you might look at the article Tux :-) Nancy Sculerati 08:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
- I'm banking it here- I don't want to be rude but this is not a precedent that I can tolerate in these species/genus/kind of animal articles. By the way- an article on animals in popular culture might be great - you could start that at put this there and go on to include all the animals that have starring roles in popular culture and it would be a very interesting and worthwhile addition then CZ. Nancy Sculerati 09:06, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
- I don't understand this. I thought articles could be associated with multiple workgroups; how do you know that someone searching for 'penguin' is interested only in the biology of these species? John Stephenson 21:01, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
collecting data for table
1) Adelie penguin - 2) Pygoscelis adeliae,3) Magellanic penguins- Spheniscus magellanicus, 4) Humboldt penguins -Spheniscus humboldti, 5) macaroni penguin - Eudyptes chrysolophus, 6) gentoo penguin -Pygoscelis papua, 7) king penguin - Aptenodytes patagonicus, 8) emperor penguins - Aptenodytes forsteri, royal penguin
This is a high priority Google search item. --Larry Sanger 17:00, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
Article on penguins and aircraft
It's not an earth-shaking matter, but I am a bit disturbed at how quickly this article was deleted, without much discussion. Frankly, I regarded it as the sort of admittedly trivial article that can be good for public relations, or drawing interest. Yes, the topic can certainly be included in this one.
I would have liked to have seen more discussion; my personal preference would have been to have left it in existence, linked it here, and indeed to some needed top-level articles such as urban legend. It engendered much comment in the Falklands War; anecdotes often illustrate wars or simply give a glimpse into the culture.
A general comment: as an Editor, I have repeatedly called for the deletion of some articles that, in my specialist opinion, needed total rewrite to be focused, accurate, up-to-date on current topics, or politically neutral. There are other articles that I do not believe belong in CZ, essentially as unresolvable conspiracy theories, presented in a manner that does not allow neutral discussion; any discussion seems to require one agrees that the subject of the article is real. After some months, however, I have been unable to get a number of those situations resolved. Food for thought. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's still around as a catalog subpage. I wrote much of it but ultimately decided that it couldn't really be maintainable given that it's based on an urban legend and one scientific study. However, if it could be built up, it would be good for it to go back to full article status. John Stephenson 03:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Apropos of Penguins reduced to the Ranks
You are aware, I trust, of Colonel-in-Chief of the Norwegian King's Guard, Sir Nils Olav? 
More seriously, yes, the aircraft story is probably an urban legend. This, and other penguin anecdotes, are almost iconic of the Falklands War; I'm not quite sure I'd call them popular culture as much as the sort of thing that gives the human (or avian) side of military history. Somewhere in my library, I have a picture of penguins standing on a submarine, looking like crew; I should be able to find it.
As a Military Workgroup Editor, I would have been hesitant to speedydelete, with full acknowledgement that it was unprovable — but widely believed. That certain small islands seemed populated only by penguins does give a sense of the remoteness of the area; the sheep farms were veritable metropolises. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- We mention a military penguin at penguins in popular culture - an article that should not, of course, be demoted. Anyway, Howard, as you are a Military Editor, you outrank me and so you could promote the aircraft article. John Stephenson 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm getting this horrible image of an article collecting these, "Military Penguins". This is something upon which I should sleep. Seriously, would it be a simple solution to move the aircraft incident under the popular culture? (thinking of a pet peacock I knew; while, I suppose, it wasn't his chest that was bemedaled, he certainly outdid most field marshals) Howard C. Berkowitz 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)