Talk:Carnivora

Grrrr!

At the risk of sounding like a humourless git, am I the only person here who thinks the lion picture on this page is excessively silly? Just wondering. The Singing Badger 20:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was changed recently. In my opinion the "grrrrrr!" balloon is a bit out of style on a scientific page. Seems like someone's joke in a wrong place. Paul Pogonyshev 23:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The lion pic was vandalised by some joker. I have now put a completely different photo there. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 23:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two closing curly braces before chapter 'Classification of the extant carnivorans'

I don't see what they are good for. 94.218.76.27 (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed them. The curly braces are used for a series of nested {{clade}} templates that are used to create the cladogram. An extra closing double brace was inadvertently left when editing the cladogram. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

And, to clarify my own earlier edit, that was because you inadvertently deleted the wrong set of brackets. Obviously an innocent mistake, but it had to be fixed. Anaxial (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Duplication in lead section

"The caniforms include the dogs, bears, raccoons, weasels, and seals. Members of this group are found worldwide and with immense diversity in their diet, behavior, and morphology." Is this necessary after it has already been mentioned above in "the Caniformia, containing the true canids (such as wolves and dingos) and many somewhat "dog-like" forms such as sea lions and bears." Many miles to go (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Respell

I believe per respell rules that kar-NIV-ər-ə is incorrect. The correct respell should be kar-NIH-vər-ə because the checked I is in an accented, not unaccented, syllable. @Anaxial: do you agree? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: As discussed on your talk page and in English phonology#Phonotactics, linguists usually syllabify a stressed checked vowel and the following consonant together (or regard the latter as ambisyllabic), as checked vowels are never found at the end of a word and theories of syllabification are informed by observations on what is a possible word in the given language. That's why the OED, American Heritage Dictionary, Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, and Longman Pronunciation Dictionary identify the stressed syllable in carnivora or carnivorous to be /nɪv/.

The whole reason the respelling key has ih as an alternative to i, as discussed in the footnotes there, is that sometimes syllabifying it with the following consonant indicates an incorrect pronunciation. Respelling e.g. guitar as ghit-AR falsely implies the /t/ is not aspirated and may be flapped or glottalized, so we respell it as ghih-TAR. This is a compromise—something we do only reluctantly—because, since no English word ends in a stressed /ɪ/, ghih is susceptible to being misinterpreted as /ɡiː/ (and ghi as /ɡaɪ/). But unlike ghit-AR vs ghih-TAR, kar-NIV-ər-ə and kar-NIH-vər-ə imply no difference, so there's no reason to choose the latter which more prone to being misinterpreted as having /iː/. That's why we have hundreds of articles with respellings like HURT-sə-GOV-in-ə, NAV-ə-hoh, LUV-əl, ə-LIV-ee-ay, and LIV-ee, and not HURT-sə-GO-vin-ə, NA-və-hoh, LUH-vəl, ə-LIH-vee-ay, or LIH-vee. If we're going to respell carnivora any differently, you have to give us a reason. (Pinging also Bananah20 who added the respelling.) Nardog (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You know I countered all of your arguments on my talk page, including pointing out how each of the Repell notes doesn't apply as written. For instance, that note 1 only applies to unstressed syllables, and in carnivora the syllable in question is stressed. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Countered? You're the one who stopped replying to my questions and proceeded to reinstate your preference. Note 1 is carving out an exception for when syllabifying a checked vowel and the following consonant together leads to the wrong pronunciation; the implicit corollary is that of course you're going to syllabify them together when it doesn't. For the nth time, what is the basis for your preferred syllabification, and what makes carnivora different from the hundreds of other words we respell with a checked vowel and the following consonant together? Nardog (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note 1 is about an unstressed checked vowel. In this case, it is a stressed vowel. That is what makes the difference. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So you're just not going to answer my questions? And what does the note (which I wrote, by the way, to document what was already common practice) not being about stressed syllables have to do with this anyway? Sure, it doesn't directly pertain to the question at hand; that means it doesn't validate or reinforce your position either. Nardog (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we follow the sources? As both forms are found in reputable dictionaries, I suggest using both, with the more common one first.  —  Jts1882 | talk  05:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What difference do you think is conveyed by kar-NIV-ər-ə and kar-NIH-vər-ə? Nardog (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jts1882, the OED and MW are split on which to use. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with kar-NIV-ər-ə; there's no aspirated 'h' sound in the middle of the word - MPF (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RESPELL: the 'h' indicates a short or checked vowel. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Except, I'd say it should be kar-NIV-or-ə; it's Carnivora, with an -or- sound, not "Carniver-a" ;-) MPF (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And MW is alone in syllabifying that way, as seen above. Nardog (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary entries:

• OED: kar-NIV-uh-ruh
• MW: had something closer to kar-NIH-vər-ə but they no longer support respell it seems

- UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"karnivuhruh" sounds just plain weird!! Like someone wheezing with seriously bad asthma . . . 😳😱 – but seriously, why do we give any pronunciation thing at all? Seems rather prescriptive, at odds with peoples' freedom to pronounce how they see fit - MPF (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Second paragraph of lead

The second paragraph could use some work in terms of clarity, consistency, and overlinking.

• Clarity: The paragraph introduces a lot of terminology like true felids and pinniped which are obviously accurate and relevant but could be defined or replaced in the intro with more accessible language for general audience. I'm not fundamentally opposed to using this terminology but it caught my eye, especially in light of the other issues described below.
• Consistency: Usage varies between taxonomic and common family names (e.g., The feliforms include the Felidae, Viverridae, hyena, and mongoose families), uses both felid and Felidae, and use of families vs subfamilies and other clades to provide examples. I can see the reasoning here and I'm not arguing it is incorrect.
• Overlinking: Felidae and felid are both linked despite directing to the same page. Phrases like Americas likely do not require wikilinking here. Cat and dog are commonly understood and may not need wikilinks, although those articles are clearly relevant to the topic of this article.

I may make some edits but I don't have a strong sense of which direction to take so starting here for now.

Referring to the current version at the time of this writing. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed wikilinks[1] to geographic regions/features per MOS:OVERLINK. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)