Talk:Gelada

Ethiopia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates Mid‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Eritrea

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Eritrea portal This article is supported by WikiProject Eritrea.

Gelada "language"

Has anybody detailed information about the current progress in understanding the "language" of the geladas? The chatter they emmit sounds almost identical to that of the Ewoks in Starwars. :-) LuckyStarr 21:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a study by Dunbar, which you can find here: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs00000565-00/bbs.dunbar.html that mentioned work by someone called Richman on cataloguing and attempting to understand their language. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of another project (on the evolution of human language) right now so I don't have time to look into it fully, but if anyone feels like tracking it down it should be helpful. Danikat 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Gelada (as posted on Talk:UtherRSG)

first off, let me say that i appreciate you digging up that goodman-1998 ref, it kept me from having to do it! but seriously, i see no good reason that the article shouldn't refer to the gelada as a baboon; the label is scattered all over the literature. i mean, look at the pic right there on the page! however you want to group them taxonomically speaking - however distinct you believe them to be - geladas are baboons, and it's not just me talking. further, it seems distracting to boldface "Theropithecus" halfway down the paragraph from the common names already boldfaced in the intro. lastly, it seems kind of archaic to capitalize Gelada wherever it appears in the article/sentence - it's not a proper name. one would not do the same with Puma, for instance, capping the first letter each time, regardless. either way, it should be done if only because that is largely the common convention in wikipedia.

anyhoo, don't mean to snipe! i do tend to "nit-pick" at times. just want it to be a decent encyc article, is all.

i'll post this at Talk:Gelada, just in case you want to continue the thread....

Metanoid 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per previous post: when i said "either way, it should be done if only because that is largely the common convention in wikipedia", what i meant was actually "it should NOT be done that way, if only because it is NOT the common convention in wikipedia".

Metanoid 06:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. should the taxbox be footnoted? looks kind of messy.

Metanoid 06:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSW3 calls it "Gelada" not "Gelada Baboon", while it calls all of the Papio species baboons. WP:PRIM is using MSW3 as the primary source, unless there is something published after it that supercedes it. Since this article is about the one species, and the one species is the only member of the genus, the article is also about the genus. It is proper to boldface the genus in the first paragraph since it is one of the subjects of the article. (Many other articles are done this way and it 'is standard.) WP:PRIM also uses capitals for species names; see WP:BIRD for the reasoning. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, np, UtherSRG, looks like you're more in the know than i am here! sorry bout changing your work pre-emptively, it was a late night kinda thing. i do have some extremely minor concerns, but as my we connection is on the fritz, i have to get back to ya. thanks! - Metanoid 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG, i have to say, i followed up on the WP:PRIM, and most of your reasoning made perfect sense. but i see now that you've also removed the magazine cover with the title "baboon" and the gelada pic. i apologize if this sounds rude, but that seems a bit silly to remove every single ref to the gelada as a baboon. it is frequently referred to as a "gelada baboon" in both scientific and lay arenas. tho i'm fine with sticking with just 'Gelada' the whole article, i think it's completely fine to mention the fact in the intro (and in the pic - that was a good close face shot, after all!). i will be putting it back within 24 hours unless you give me a rational reason against it. nothing personal. Metanoid 01:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what ceremony?

User:Yom mentioned in the history page for this article that a ref is needed for the mention of a cultural group (not named) that uses gelada manes for a coming-of-age rite. i googled this, and found only various repeats of this "fact" borrowed right of wikipedia. does any editor out there have a legit ref? if not, i'd suggest we remove the mention. Metanoid 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

early Pleistocene

early Pleistocene monkey and Democratic Republic of the Congo - hapless. I added source; there: more about Theropithecus habitats. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group size

There is some comment on groups banding together into herds, but the article doesn't say what sort of numbers we are talking about. On the BBC's Human Planet, it wad stated that they raided in groups of up to 600 - this would seem remarkable considering theories around group size and brain size. --Davoloid (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

The article lacks completely a reference as to why this animal is called like that (at least in Anglo-American environments). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.15.109 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]