Talk:California Clapper Rail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	California Clapper Rail is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae
Biology WikiPortal

An entry from California Clapper Rail appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 March 2006.

[edit] Cleanup tasks

A little bit of cleanup needed here. Tasks I'd suggest as a priority are:

• adopting Wikipedia standards for the bird's (and "Common" Clapper Rail's) English name
• removing confusion over the bird's taxonomic status (it can't really be both a species and a subspecies of another species, as the lead says

SP-KP 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "species", but an "endangered species". Unfortunately, endangered "species" need not be taxonomic species. There's really no otehr way to express it in the article,I'm afraid. Circeus 19:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is ... you just need to give it a bit more thought. How about, for example, "The California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) is a subspecies of the Clapper Rail. It has been classified as "endangered species" by XXX (the categorisation system used by XXX uses the term "endangered species" regardless of the taxonomic status of the form in question)" SP-KP 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

More problems:

• rails aren't shorebirds
• the taxobox is confused - the species entry gives the subspecies name, but links to the species
• the article now says that this subspecies is related to the Clapper Rail - it was better before.
• the endangered species thing still isn't fixed - following the endangered species link takes you to a definition which states equivocally that an endangered species is a species - if this is not correct, we need to fix that page; if it is, we need to fix this one

SP-KP 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done to Anlace for fixing the first three of the second set of problems above - please could you put the cleanup tag back though, as none of the original problems are fixed. We also now have another new problem in that "Common clapper rail" - an undefined entity - appears in the first paragraph - what do we mean by that? SP-KP 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anlace - your latest edit doesn't help, in my opinion. Why the reluctance to discuss this at the talk page? SP-KP 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

as far as i know this is the talk page :) there is now no reference to the "common clapper rail" and i think your other issues have been addressed. have you read the endangered species page recently. it's been edited and should meet your objection. if not, have at it and fix endangered species to your liking, regards Anlace 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it equivocation to state that an endangered species is a species? Did you mean to use a different word, or is there a nuance I'm not picking up on? It's somewhat redundant, but I don't think we can easily get around that while maintaining accuracy. Or are you concerned that a subspecies may also be endangered? It is my understanding that an organism is an individual, not a population. This conversation probably belongs at Talk:Endangered species, but I don't know if you have that on watch. NickelShoe 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that should have been unequivocal. I agree that a conversation is needed at Talk:Endangered species about the usages of the term; however, thanks to the work of User:jimfbleak the problems I flagged with this page all now appear to be sorted out - well done Jim. SP-KP 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First assessment

this is a usable article and meets WP NPOV reqs; writing is good and coverage is satisfactory; could easily become a good article with more work on range and references. Importance is high because of the conservation status of this species. Cdcdoc 05:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)