Talk:seagull

Shouldn't this article simply say "gull (bird)", and all the rest deleted? As I understand it the meaning is identical, but gull is more correct. I may be wrong, of course.

213.208.107.91 03:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * seagull is the more common term, at least in US English. Of particular interest to linguists is the variation (or lack thereof) of translations between the two terms.  --Connel MacKenzie 06:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, of course. What I had in the back of my mind was a belief that gull was the correct name in scientific usage. If this is true, maybe ut should be reflected in the article?

RFV
Rfv-sense: (orthography) The symbol  ̼, which combines under a letter as a sort of accent. -- Liliana • 04:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Spinning Spark  12:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of SpinningSpark’s five linked examples, only №ˢ 1 and 3 use the term; №ˢ 2 and 4 merely describe the diacritic as resembling a seagull, whilst № 5 only mentions that undefined: is the diacritic’s name. Howbeit, I believe this page, describing the Unicode character “COMBINING SEAGULL BELOW” (Unicode hexadecimal code: U+033C), should be decisive in closing this discussion, seeing as this term is in clearly widespread use. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take Unicode names as a definite source. For example, they call ︘ a brakcet (sic!). -- Liliana • 15:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but that's a mistake, whereas calling that diacritic a seagull is not; that said, I think that, if their mistake is noteworthy enough, we should probably make a note of it (such as in the case of, which Unicode mistakenly calls ). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Unicode folks have a thing for seabirds. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * :-D  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, given that SpinningSpark has linked to several citations, and there are presumably more, can I close this as "clearly in use" without making someone actually put the quotations into the entry? (Just tryin' to save us all some time...) - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck (kept). - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)