Talk:Koala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleKoala is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. OK
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead: ok; Layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. OK
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

"The koala's small brain size is possibly due to the lack of sufficient energy to sustain a larger brain." needs to be cited. Cite 31 is the citation. All the information in the article is sourcedto the very next cite. I've learned it is redundant to cite the same thing twice in a row. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm. The "next cite" is actually 32. Could you please cite the sentence with 31 or 32 as appropriate - this actually illustrates the reason: things quickly move about or get separated by editing, often by many hands, that's just how it is.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


2c. it contains no original research. OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Taxonomy and evolution section is very brief. Could there be a cladogram or other diagram of the place of the current Koala among the fossil species? There could be a timeline or set of (overlapping) horizontal bars, for instance, to show when the other Koalas lived (and went extinct). The relationships with marsupial tapirs etc, and the possums and kangaroos would be much easier to visualize with a simple cladogram (could have just one branch for all the Koalas).

-

I'll check and see if the papers have have contain phylogenies but I don't know how to do a cladgram. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Either clarify the text or add a diagram such as a timeline.

Clarify what? It states that the koala branch was the earliest to branches, I don't think we need to get into detail on the branches of the other families. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


Article should discuss the distinctly inedible diet - see e.g. Moore B, Foley WJ. Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape]. Nature 2005;435:488-490. And why are Koalas so apparently defenceless themselves - often, such slow "prey" are aposematic - dangerous or poisonous? Perhaps the literature discusses this.

It is discussed in the "description" section. As for defences, the literature I have does not seem to discuss this, but I'll look further. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Description doesn't address the question.

I added that koala have few predators and birds of prey are threats only to the young. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This works better.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Not sure the list of people photographed with koalas is really relevant, and it's almost uncited. Perhaps the whole "Cultural significance" section needs gentle pruning and attention to being "encyclopedic".

I removed Jackie Chan and Janet Jackson but left the others. It is notable that so many powerful leaders have their pictures taken with the animal and it illustrates its international appeal. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. OK
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No sign of recent editwarring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Not sure if Platinum Koala is validly licensed.

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better.

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Seem to be too many images of Koala "portrait", "On Kangaroo Island", "Resting" -- are these images adding anything to the article?

Yes, the Kangaroo Island picture is next to the paragraph that talks about invasive populations and the "portrait" give the reader a good view of the animal when reading the description section. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The main thing the Kangaroo Island picture adds is the caption, otherwise it's just a Koala in a tree; same for Portrait. I think "portrait" should go, it's redundant with the lead image, which does the same thing better.

Did some replacing and rearranging. LittleJerry (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


I wonder if it would be helpful to include an image of e.g. Eucalyptus tereticornis to show a major food plant?

Already have one of the animal eating. LittleJerry (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw. But since the Eucalyptuses are so important it could be good to show the food plant more clearly.
I don't think theres enough room. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It's linked, I guess - seemed there was room for multiple images... but it does look and read better, and I think the GA threshold has been reached.


Picture of 'Koala Rock Art' isn't actually of a koala. It is the lighting man painting at Norlangie Rock in Kakadu, Northern Territory (see below link). http://www.google.com.au/search?bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bih=853&safe=active&q=Lighting+man+kakadu&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aGc&biw=1680&wrapid=tlif137386711625110&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=64zjUfHtLITziAfhxoDIDA

Concerns verified - the photo has now been replaced - see discussion Talk:Koala#Questionable rock art image - File:Koala_rupestre.jpg. Bahudhara (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Overall assessment. A readable and informative article on a popular topic.

Semi-protection[edit]

I noticed that this article is semi-protected, while there is no evidence of edit-wars on this talk page or of constant vandalism in the history. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There was very significant ongoing vandalism before the semi-protection was put in place, and previous times that the semi was lifted resulted in an almost immediate onslaught of further vandalism. Having said that, that was four years ago, which is a long time. Anaxial (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In zoos[edit]

Koalas are not often in zoos, I think in Vienna is the only koalas in europe. A list like the in zoos list from the great panda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#In_zoos

would be nice and interesting!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120305152315AA0gIRi http://www.zoochat.com/2/european-zoos-koalas-267479/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.2.254 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason that koalas are rarely found in zoos outside Australia is that their diet in restricted to only a few species of eucalypts. Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

please check[edit]

Thank you for that awesome article, its a very nice read. Could you please check this sentence: … around 57 million years ago during the Oligocene.[13]. 57 Mya would be late Paleocene, that's twice as old as the Oligocene. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected this to 23 million years, thanks kindly for your note! Sasata (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Text Correction - joeys are young kangaroos not young koala bears ![edit]

As this article remains semi-protected , please remove the following in the 2nd paragraph : QUOTE These young koalas are known as joeys, and UNQUOTE .

This is most definitely incorrect , check any ( online ) dictionary , amongst others : http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#J .

Young kangaroos are known as " joeys " not young koala bears , as any Australian will tell you .

This sentence would then read : QUOTE Young koalas are fully . . . a year . UNQUOTE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.72.214 (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as that slang dictionary says, baby kangaroos are known as joeys, but so too are baby koalas. See here, here, and here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

....on another interesting article! Amandajm (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Popularly known as a koala bear, I think not...[edit]

Can we please remove the line "It is popularly known as the koala bear because of its bear-like appearance." in the opening paragraph? It is unsourced and koalas are not commonly referred to as "koala bears" in Australia. If you want to leave the line in there, please at least change it to "It is often incorrectly referred to as...". Thanks. Slabba (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - I have just changed the 'popularly known as' to 'incorrectly known as' - and then removed the offending sentence altogether. Figaro (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure I would remove the sentence altogether. Whilst it is incorrect to refer to koalas as koala bears, they are also referred to as koala bears nevertheless. I would recommend reinstating the sentence, but changing it to "popularly known outside Australia as the koala bear" because to say "incorrectly known as the koala bear" may give some readers the impression that Australians also refer to them as koala bears. Any other comments?--Forward Unto Dawn 12:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I agree. Hardly anyone calls them bears within Australia, however you do often hear non-Australians calling them that. That is an incorrect term, however it should still be noted in the lead, as that is a common name for them. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 13:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There is already a comment in the "Etymology" section about the incorrect term, where it states:
Because of the koala's resemblance to a bear, it was often miscalled the koala bear, particularly by early settlers.
so there would be a duplication of the misnomer. I am wondering whether the above sentence (in the 'Etymology' section) is enough - or whether perhaps, a comment such as:
and is still popularly known outside Australia by that name.
could perhaps be added to the sentence, thereby achieving two purposes - that of showing that the 'popularity' of the name is by people outside Australia - while not putting too much emphasis on the misnomer itself. Figaro (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm still all for mentioning it in the introduction (since the introduction sums up the article), but emphasising that the term "koala bear" is only used outside Australia. Although, to do so might perpetuate this name. Perhaps it should only be discussed in the Etymology section. Hmmm... quite a pickle.--Forward Unto Dawn 14:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I was also rather jarred to see "popularly known as" in the lead, as if it was somehow OK to call it a "koala bear". I wish we could somehow word this to make it clearer that it IS NOT a bear. It's true that the term "koala bear" is widely used, particularly in America, but I'd like to see it say something like "often incorrectly called a koala bear." --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "popularly known" is a poor choice of words. It's very jarring to Australian ears, so in fact quite unpopular there. "Commonly but incorrectly known" (...in the USA, or wherever that is the case) would be much more satisfactory. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Some good comments here. Even though it is also mentioned in the etymology section, I now think it is necessary to mention the misnomer in the opening paragraph so that it stands out. I don't like how it is currently written with the use of the word "popularly". Since at present, it reads like everyone (including Aussies) call the marsupial, "koala bears". Perhaps we could write it as, "Because of its bear-like appearance, it is a common misconception to refer to koalas as koala bears". Interestingly, past tense is used in the etymology section, "it was often miscalled...", so we might need to tinker with that section too. Slabba (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
How about "Because of its bear-like appearance, it is a common error outside Australia to refer to koalas as koala bears"? The word "misconception" doesn't quite fit that structure. And yes, it's certainly still a current error. I routinely found "koala bear" in American web sites when looking for sources for my response in the discussion about joeys above. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I like that. Should we add "in fact they are not related to bears", or just leave it as you have it? I really think we need to fix this, and I wish it had been done before the article went on the Main Page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy with that wording HiLo48. I don't think we need to add the "not related to bears" comment, as it makes the sentence a bit unwieldy, but I'm open to suggestions. Slabba (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I like your sentence, HiLo48. I think it sums up the key points well. It also belongs in the introduction per MOS:LEADALT--Forward Unto Dawn 06:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. (With a tiny grammar correction.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 07:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Do we have a source that says it is not called a "koala bear" in Australia? That needs to be cited in the article before it is put in the lead. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Taking the word of an Australian is not sufficient. I'll have a look for some reliable sources.--Forward Unto Dawn 07:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
What does everyone think of Helium.com as a source? It appears to be (semi) peer reviewed. Because I found an article (http://www.helium.com/items/913170-animal-facts-koala-bear) which states that "while there may be some Australians who make the classic error of referring to koalas as koala bears, it's mainly people from overseas who use that term". I'm still looking for other sources. There are plenty of sources on the subject, but thus far only Helium seemed acceptable. Although for some reason, Wikipedia has it listed on its spam blacklist.--Forward Unto Dawn 07:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "Because of the koala's supposed resemblance to a bear, it was often miscalled the koala bear, particularly by early settlers." is nonsense because early settling of Australia started in 1788 while phylogeny didn't arise until Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. So this looks like revisionist history, the early settlers calling the animal a bear would have been correct for the time because it looked like a bear! There was not yet any scientific basis to to disprove it as being related to the bear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.29.242 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Velar vocal cords[edit]

I added a description of the newly discovered vocal cords in the soft palate of Koalas, together with a citation to Charlton et al 2013. I wasn't sure whether to add this with the rest of the anatomy under "Description" or under "Social spacing" where the vocalization is already described. I ended up adding to both sections. Is this standard for species pages? I also stuck to the Current Biology paper but there's also a nice blog article here, together with soundclip - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/02/newly-discovered-organ-helps-koalas-bellow-at-elephant-pitch/ Cmungall (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Localised deforestation[edit]

Some localised areas of Australia obviously have experienced 100% deforestation (eg Sydney Airport). The article says that localised deforestation ranges between 33% and 93%. These statements can not both be true. What part of this don't you understand? Mark Marathon (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for clarifying your concern. I have amended the text using a different source. Sasata (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The geographical range[edit]

FFS, stop reverting every edit I make. At no point does that article say that the term geographical range of the koala has shrunk. It never even uses the term geographical range. Nor does it say that >50% of any shrinkage is caused by fragmentation of habitat in Queensland. If you believe otherwise then quote where the article makes those claims. You have already broken the three revert rule twice today.. For your own good, I suggest you stop this behaviour. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The McGregor 2013 article says just that in the first two lines of the second paragraph of the introduction. "Geographical range" and "distribution" I would consider synonymous. The term "geographic rage is used in the title FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The terms are not synonymous in ecology. Geographic range is the area where a species can be found. It's essentially a line drawn on a map, everything inside the line is the range. Distribution is a much more precise delineation of where the species actually exists. It's not uncommon to refer to a species' distribution [within its range] , which rather highlights that the terms aren't in any way synonymous. To pick an obvious example, tigers have the same geographical range as they had 40, 000 yeas ago, extending from Siberia to Java. They certainly don't have the same distribution. The article does use the term geographic range in the title, but it never says, or even implies that it has shrunk.

And if you believe that the article attributes >50% of the shrinkage to fragmentation of habitat in Queensland, then can you please quote where it says that? Mark Marathon (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright then - this is the comparing:
Source - "The distribution of the koala has contracted by more than 50% from pre-European distribution [11], [12], with much of the reduction attributed to extensive fragmentation of koala habitat in Queensland"
Article - "The distribution of the koala has shrunk by more than 50% since European arrival, largely due to fragmentation of habitat in Queensland"
I'd say that "largely due to" is a fair rewording of "with much of the reduction attributed to" - this is, I presume, what you have a problem with?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Largely is a nebulous term. It may mean 5%, it may mean 95%. It is not in any way synonymous with majority. In scientific writing, when "majority" or "most" is meant, that is the word used. The fact that the authors did not say majority makes it reasonable to assume that this is not the case.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
??? - Okay, I'd say that "much of" is as nebulous as "largely" and as one couldn't state which one is necessarily greater than the other, then to all intents and purposes they are synonymous. I think you are splitting hairs here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No, they are not synonymous. Look at some dictionary definitions. Largely means "to a great extent; on the whole; chiefly; mostly; almost completely ". "Much of" is never used as synonym of "mostly". If you believe that it can be, then please provide evidence to that effect. If you can't, then the terms are not synonymous.
If the authors have chosen the phrase "much of" ", and the alternative word is open to being misinterpreted as "mostly", which is clearly not the intent of the authors, then why the hell use the alternative word?Mark Marathon (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
(a) we avoid identical terms to avoid paraphrasing. Most people would think of "much" as "alot" - at least on my planet anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree entirely. So we'll use "a lot", we won't don't use "largely". Glad we could settle this.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "The distribution of the koala has shrunk by more than 50%... a lot due to fragmentation of habitat..." is not grammatically correct English, and I've reverted accordingly. I suggest an alternative phrasing. Anaxial (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

Following the ANEW report I have protected this article for three days. Can we resolve this matter sensibly here without having to resort to further administrative action? I am highly loath to issue blocks over a good-faith disagreement like this appears to be. I will of course unprotect the moment I notice or someone informs me that this is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. --John (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we add that the AKF is currently working a trying to pass the Koala Protection Act, to protect the Koalas? While they don't so much care about the habitat, they do care about the Koalas themselves. (Queenb1621 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC) queenb1621) 8:15, 25 January 2015 [1]

References

Questionable rock art image - File:Koala_rupestre.jpg[edit]

Another view of the rock art in question, which does have provenance supplied

This image (Koala_rupestre.jpg) in the 'Cultural significance' section has been bothering me for some time and yesterday I listed it for discussion at our Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 10, which took place last night. We made a quick Google check which revealed that the original photo was taken in Kakadu National Park, and a bit more searching this morning pinpoints it as being taken at the Anbangbang Art site at Nourlangie Rock. There are other depictions of these rock paintings in Commons, such as the one I've included here for comparison, as well as on the WWWeb, as this site is often visited by tourists and shown on various trip report blogs. None of the descriptions of the significance of these figures to Aboriginal Australians mention koalas (e.g. see Nourlangie Rock Art Gallery), which isn't at all surprising as Kakadu is some 1,300 km from the nearest koala habitat. The filename, as well as the caption "Aboriginal rock art depicting a koala", therefore seems to be a personal interpretation by the original file uploader and subsequently uncritically accepted by the editor who added it to the article.

I'm surprised that even though the image was called into question during the GA review, no-one seems to have followed this up. There's no evidence from the original uploader's list of contributions or userpage that s/he ever visited Australia, which also raises copyright questions. I'll remove the image shortly and replace it with something more appropriate to the section. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

Please replace reference: George Culver "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Culver" to: Georges Cuvier "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier"

80.174.170.220 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - good spot - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014[edit]

It is written koalas sleep 20 hrs a day and are active for 4 minutes a day .. .it should be 4 hours.. please make the correction .. Thanks :) 182.74.60.205 (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It says "only 4 minutes a day are spent in active movement". Koalas, like any of us, can be awake and not moving. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -This one says, "they usually feed and move around for about four hours a day". Thanks for the correction suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The statement in 'Description' that "Unlike kangaroos and eucalyptus-eating possums, koalas are hindgut fermenters" is incorrect. All Australian possums and gliders are most certainly hindgut fermenters. Ref: Hume I.D. (1999) MArsupial Nutrition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521595551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkyben (talkcontribs) 22:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014[edit]

Please add a period at the end of the "History" subsection (Vladimir Putin). 174.124.245.18 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Bahudhara (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


On inaccuracy[edit]

"The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus, or, inaccurately, koala bear)...."

I request audience for a quibble, please.

As you may have predicted, said quibble pertains to the specific verbiage of the adduced sentence. Yes, it's quite obvious that the inclusion of the word 'bear' in the title is inaccurate--that isn't what I'm contesting, as koalas are quite plainly not members of the family Ursidae. No, I'm just a bit dubious about the pertinence of mentioning such a thing in the opening sentence of the article. Moreover, doing so foregoes mentioning that this is a colloquialism--or, at the very least, insinuates the colloquialisms are inherently inaccurate. Not every English title for an animal is inherently colloquial, either. However, 'koala bear', as a title, is certainly more prevalent in colloquial contexts--something that, I believe, warrants a mention. Furthermore, I'm fairly sure that most speakers are cognizant of the fact that the koala bear is not actually a bear when they employ this phrase.

Without any further garrulous ado, I propose that we modify the sentence so that it reads "The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus, or, colloquially, koala bear)...."

If you have any objections, I welcome you to voice them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Lourde (talkcontribs) 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm so good with it, I did it myself. I also remved the comma you added, as that was incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
What pretentious twaddle - However, 'koala bear', as a title, is certainly more prevalent in colloquial contexts--something that, I believe, warrants a mention. Really? Where's your proof? It's certainly not in general use in Australia! Furthermore, I'm fairly sure that most speakers are cognizant of the fact that the koala bear is not actually a bear when they employ this phrase. Again, where's your proof?
This has been extensively discussed previously - see #Popularly known as a koala bear, I think not...
Making the change without allowing time for more discussion is also jumping the gun, so I'm changing it back to the previous version. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait, I changed it? My apologies. I legitimately forget having done that. Sorry, I was being absent-minded. 'What pretentious twaddle'? Please, sir, be civil. Such remarks are impudent. I don't go around calling your works 'frivolous pabulum'. In any case, if it is a title, then it is one employed in colloquial contexts. Why? Because there are only two broad contexts in which Koalas could possibly be discussed: Colloquially, or academically. Secondly, if it's popular enough for the term to be noted by this article, then it must be in use *somewhere*, wouldn't you think? If that use is rare, then perhaps it would be pertinent to include some mention of that in this article. Truisms do not require substantiation. Ghost Lourde (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's an article about an Australian animal and virtually nobody in Australia calls it a koala bear colloquially or academically. I don't believe the errors of people with a passing knowledge or interest deserve to be given any more credence than they are now. It's not like it's a translation issue - the incorrect name is solely down to ignorance which I would have thought an encyclopedia is trying to stop. Of course it's fine to refer to this incorrect name usage in the article but not the title. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Species status[edit]

I reverted a change by RedCarbonAlchemist (talk) because of the edit summary "I changed it from Least concern to endangered because i looked at the facts and the population has shrunk and has a risk for going extinct." This is original research. Such a change requires sources. I think you will find that the actual status of koalas may be vulnerable, but I do not have time at the moment to find appropriate sources myself, so I have left it at the previous value. - Nick Thorne talk 22:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have re-reverted after RedCarbonAlchemist reverted with the edit summary "(https://www.savethekoala.com/about-koalas/koala-endangered-or-not This is proof.Please stop changing the page" The Koala foundation is an advocacy group with a reputation for over stating the situation and is not a reliable source for the claim being made. Evidence from the IUCN Red List of or the Federal Environment Department of the animal's conservation status would be appropriate but not the opinion of a pressure group. Their opinions are proof of nothing except their opinions. Also you do not have the right to tell other editors to stop editing the page especially when you yourself do not engage in the discussion part of the BRD cycle. - Nick Thorne talk 23:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016[edit]

According to actualised Red List of Threatened Species by IUCN Koala seems to be VU (Vulnarable) not LC.

See http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/16892/0


RadekDobrovolny (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016[edit]

165.234.100.37 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC) A koala can sleep standing165.234.100.37 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Large cecum ?[edit]

Should the ref to the large cecum be changed to large appendix? - [1] --Iztwoz (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The existing source refers to the caecum, and appears more reliable than the one you cite, where the journalist may have misunderstood exactly what the expert was saying. So I think we'd need better sources before overriding the one we already have. Anaxial (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ MBD (July 22, 2013) "Scientists Finally Discover the Function of the Human Appendix." [1]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2017[edit]

91.90.66.12 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koala. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 10:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Koala vs koala[edit]

Hello everybody,

Why is the spelling in the text "koala" and not Koala"? I thought all proper nouns are capitalized.

Thanks a lot --F.Blaubiget (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's per the Wikipedia Manual of Style - see MOS:LIFE. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018[edit]

Remove: * The Koala

The Koala link is hardly relevant and should be removed. Wundaful (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: on the contrary, the external link appears to be quite relevant, since it is about koalas and the article is about them too. Best, L293D ( • ) 02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Although the link leads to an article that is indeed relevant and is, further, informative and well-written, its home page makes it clear that it is part of a personal website and therefore should, sadly, be removed as per Wikipedia:UGC, unless it can be proved that the author is well-known elsewhere in the relevant field. Wellset (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Got to agree - while this is a very nice and apparently well-researched resource, it is also clearly a non-reviewed, personal website and as such should not be linked as per Wikipedia:UGC. I have removed the link for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)