Talk:Wren
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I reverted the alleged collective "team" name for wren: I have never heard of it, and it is not in my (good) dictionary. Even if it exists, it is highly unlikely to apply to all species of wren worldwide, and most of these collective names are made-up terms with no genuine currency. jimfbleak 14:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Upon trying to find a type of wren in the species list, I found it took me longer to find the one I was looking for since the list wasn't alphabetized by common name. The common name is most intuitive way the average user is going to search the list. I alphabetized it, and a few minutes later it was reverted by Jimfbleak. My change seemed innocuous enough. Is there any reason you want to make it more time consuming to search? --Tokalon73 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Jimfbleak, but it is standard to present birds in taxonomical order. By alpabetizing you are splitting up the birds that are in the same genus. If I knew one wren, and was interested in similar species, an aphabetical list would make it almos impossible to find all of the related species. Most browsers have a search function. Dsmdgold 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- exactly, but my apologies for not posting a message. jimfbleak 05:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Range
I grew up in the UK and got to know whant you called the Winter Wren as simply a "Wren". I took exception to your describing the Wren family as a "New World" family without qualifying that T.troglodytes is indigenous to parts of the old world as well, so I hope that you don't mind my little correction, but thanks for the otherwise superb article.
- rephrased as mainly New World, which is clearly true. jimfbleak 10:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)