Talk:Rainbow Lorikeet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Rainbow Lorikeet is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
Rainbow Lorikeet 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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
Contents |
[edit] earlier comments
Right, the nigrogularis and caeruleiceps are the same birds. In Parrots of the World they write that the nigrogularis is a slightly larger: blue on the head usually darker. But by the caeruleiceps they write; probably not separable from nigrogularis.
In my opion it are the same birds, in the subspecies T.h. massena for example are also minor difference between the islands were there coming from.
The subspecies of the Thrichoglossus haematodus group are sometimes easy to separate, but also some species are difficult. These 3 groups for exemple are almost simular: (MICROPTERYX, MASSENA, DEPLANCHI) (CAPISTRATUS, FLAVOTECTUS, FORTIS) (MITCHELLII, FORSTENI, DJAMPEANUS) Gert van Dooren gjm.vandooren@wanadoo.nl
(Comment transferred from main article - comment was made by 83.118.70.238)
[edit] Major Changes
The article had a lot of good information, but it was poorly-organised and the writing was awkward. I think maybe the subheadings as I've got them need a little more detail, or need to be better combined, but I feel that it's an improvement on the article. I did remove a lot of inconsequential and redundant information.
I would like to see more information on reproduction, specifically on clutch size, courtship rituals and fledging. I may try to add the information myself at a later date, if no one's beat me to it.
Please feel free to better organise the article! Lomaprieta 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Too many photos
How many pictures does this page's gallery need? Just about anyone in Australia can take and upload a photo of a rainbow lorikeet, but that doesn't mean they should -- and the gallery is getting kind of cluttered. Lomaprieta 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should remove the bad quality photos (some are blurred, etc.) not just randomly remove photos in order from the last one to the first one. Or maybe simply remove the gallery and use some of the best photos in the actual article. --Rocky88 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have already removed several and have tried to retain those that show distinctive aspects, but I also agree that there are still way too many. I'll have another go at reducing the numbers. Velela 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reorganizing this article
Now the name Rainbow Lorikeet refers really to a few of the many subspecies of this bird: this causes problems in terms of what we call the page.
We can move this page to the scientific name to remove any ambiguity over what the page is referring to. It can either be a big page with all information on it or can be a fork to all the subspecies.
I'll put a tag as a controversial move. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion on requested move
Thoughts here (?) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Opppose for now until a better justification for the move is made. The fact is that Rainbow Lorikeet is a well established common name for the species as a whole, and is used over a large part of its range. Its the common name used for the species in every guide book and handbook I've ever seen. If someone wants to do separate subspecies articles then they can but in any event there is no one subspecies that also has the name Rainbow Lorikieet that it could cause confusion with. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- while I oppose the move of an individual article from common name to taxonomical name, I wouldnt be opposed to a policy shift via WP:BIRD that resulted in all bird article being changed. Common names should become redirect pages. Gnangarra 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- A shift of that magnitude would need to be discussed amongst the whole of Wikipedia, I feel. What binomials gain in taxanomic clarity they lack in clarity to the layman, and we need to think of the reader. I'd oppose such a move, myself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that all birds have "formal" common names. What is the formal common name for this species? Hesperian 06:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- AFAIK there are no formal common names as such like scientific names. They do not need to be described, diagnosed nor published. There seems to be some sort of push toward standardising names with official lists by various organizations in recent years but I am unsure how much weight they carry {this is a subject of debate elsewhere). cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I like the taxonomic naming its precise and clear, where as common names can lead to problems, surely Haliaeetus leucocephalus also should be at its taxonomic name. Its just that such a move should be decided from a project level as there needs to be a consistancy across associated all articles. This article does indicate many subspecies with their own common names, its just that the difference arent always known. Gnangarra 09:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Cas, why do you say that "Rainbow Lorikeet" refers to only a few subspecies? I checked the Birds Australia checklist, and they consider "Rainbow Lorikeet" the common name for the species. Hesperian 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- We call T. h. rubritorquis "Red-collared lorikeet". The name "Rainbow lorikeet" refers to the subspecies T. h. moluccanus. Another one is Weber's lorikeet T. h. weberi. The overall name in 1978 Forshaw's Parrots of the World is Rainbow Lory (not lorikeet) - he seems to make a distinction for some reason, I am not sure why. I am not familiar with other non-oz species, but it reminds me of the whole Platycercus elegans species which now incorporates the red Crimson Rosella and the yellow Yellow Rosella (I have to check what that page is called now too...). T. h. moluccanus has also been called Swainson's lorikeet...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't see this as any different to calling Banksia integrifolia "Coast Banksia" but B. i. subsp. monticola "White Mountain Banksia". The fact that different common names exist for particular subspecies needn't invalidate the species' common name. Or to put it another way, I don't see any problem with having different common names at different taxonomic ranks. Hesperian 12:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose. I understand the reasoning with this particular taxon, but I believe that current policy should prevail or change completely. Other names can be easily handled with redirects. I note that, in general, common names have greater stability than scientific ones, so would also oppose a change in policy. Maias 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- PS. There are similar problems with other taxa, e.g. Island Thrush. I think consistency of treatment is important for accessibility. Maias 12:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Closing the requested move
Dang, I forgot to stick a template thingy here. Never mind. I have removed it from the moves page. Thanks all. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
