Talk:Cleaning symbiosis/Archive 1

Organisation

I feel this article would benefit by first discussing the biological range and diversity, and then further down, developing the arguements of whether it is symbiotic, mutuaistic, etc.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but the order is not wrong as it is. After all, the article is about the thing in itself, what it is, how it works. Diversity illustrates a range of examples, which quite logically comes after explaining what it's an example of. If we put diversity first, we're saying, here are some cases, see if you can generalize from these - maybe a nice bio class challenge, but perhaps not quite an encyclopedia's style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

opening sentence

I'm wondering whether the opening sentence could be a little more inclusive and accurate. How about - Cleaning symbiosis is defined as the removal and subsequent ingestion of ectoparasites, diseased and injured tissue, and unwanted food items by cleaning organisms. The cleaner animal removes and ingests material from organisms termed hosts.(Losey, G.S. (1972). Copeia, 1972: 820-833) This also avoids the misleading term "skin" which does not include teeth, scutes, scales, etc. __DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"skin" may indeed not be sufficient as a term, but the lead sentence isn't the place to start trying to define it in any detail. "Surface" might be better.

Cleaning symbiosis is not the removal etc etc, it's a relationship between pairs of animals of different species, involving the removal etc etc.

The sentence and its source will however be useful at the start of the main text, which unaccountably doesn't talk about it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice edits - I also think the addition of images to the table is a good idea given that Wikipedia does not like galleries. I've inserted a few which show the relationships in the table although an image of a mongoose cleaning a warthog probably does not exist. I wonder if a special case can be made for ethology to allow galleries - they can quickly convey information that is so difficult to explain to lay persons in words (a picture speaks a thousand words).__DrChrissy (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Images

I have just seen the suggestion in the text that the images should show cleaning behaviour. I agree with this in that EVERY effort should be made to present a good quality image of the behaviour. However, if one does not exist, perhaps we should allow an image of either the cleaner or the host, or both - is there a way of presenting 2 images side-by-side in the table column?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Can't say I like this, really. Let's list the reasons. 1) the behaviour is not shown. 2) the format is a mess. 3) if it were text, that'd be WP:OR; while that doesn't apply here (probably), it is a construction. 4) there is no injunction to illustrate at any price, which is what it implies: WP is not a colour picture-book. Therefore 5) it's arguably unencyclopedic. I think that's sufficient grounds to say, we shouldn't do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, not sure I liked the construct all that much either. I have removed the warthog but left the mongoose image. As I indicated before, I agree that the image should show the behaviour if at all possible, however, if we were to be consistent with this, we should lose the images of the cleaning goby, decapod shrimp, pseudoscorpion, green turtle and mongoose. This would leave more gaps than images. I would have thought the over-riding consideration is to provide information on the diversity of animals involved in cleaning symbiosis__DrChrissy (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is what we had before... but at least the placeholder animals give some idea; whether they're better or worse at stimulating people to find or take better images is a moot point - gaps could be right, actually; but certainly the table puts the images where they belong, makes it clear that other examples and better images would be desirable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that an image showing the behaviour is the best option. This is true for all articles on animal behaviour. It is partly why I created the ethology banner and started placing this on pages with an irrelevent or missing lead image. On Cleaning symbiosis, I would like to keep the mongoose image because this is such an unusual example and I suspect one which is not widely known. It would also be the largest animal to act as a cleaner than I can think of...waiting to be proved wrong ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated, it's not a critical issue. We know that pics of animals are 2nd best to pics of the named behaviour, and we await better ones. I find the banner much too "busy" - I'd suggest it should have just one animal image giving the idea of ethology - could be a chimp grooming another, 2 stags rutting, a wren feeding a cuckoo, a lion felling an antelope, whatever, but not all at once, too much like roast beef with custard for me. And the colours need toning down a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning for having multiple images was to indicate the huge diversity of behaviours and animals on ethology pages. I felt that a single image would generate discussion/argument from people who might favour other animals or behaviours. For example, above you mention only vertebrates - an invertebrate enthusiast might take issue with this.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Invertebrates are fine, a pair of cephalopods displaying at each other would be ideal, perhaps; or maybe one could find an image with a "headline" vertebrate and a token invert, a monkey using a tool to open a clam maybe; I have no particular opinion on the matter. (13 out of 15 of the banner examples are vertebrates, however.) My point is the excessive amount of "busyness" of the multiple image, and also its excessive size and weight (depth of colour, heavy lines). A banner is meant to provide quiet access to a list of other articles, not to trumpet itself. Many banners are indeed image-free strips at the ends of articles; and since there can be many banners for an article which spans subjects, it is just as well that most of them are so small and quiet. I'd say there was a clear presumption in favour of a "quiet" appearance, and the smaller the size, the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps your concerns should be raised at the banner Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should go there. But I hadn't noticed the "on pages with an irrelevant or missing lead image". Cleaning symbiosis has a lead image which is relevant - discussed in article - and not missing. A banner should not have a deprecatory intention at any time - if that's why you created it, or why it's here, it should go at once, as this page certainly does not fit either of those two criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you; perhaps I have not explained myself completely. I place the Ethology banner on many pages which are clearly ethological in nature to indicate they are part of a series. Where the lead image is already a good, clear example of the behaviour discussed in the article, I leave the image there and place the Ethology banner underneath. I only place the banner to replace the lead image when it is obvious the lead image does not show the behaviour. The oxpecker is clearly a great photo of cleaning symbiosis so I did not move it but placed the banner under it. I adjusted the size of the oxpecker so it matched the width of the banner. To me this looked cleaner...a matter of opinion and aesthetics.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)