Jump to content

Talk:Ara (bird)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ara (genus) (3 votes) July-August 2008

[edit]

Nominated May 25 2008 for WP Bird collaboration of the month;

Support:

  1. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Some good images available. The genus comprises nine well known living macaws and six extinct macaws. The article may include conservation issues and the pet trade. There are only a few genus bird articles that have been worked up, and it would be useful to have another one to provide another example of what a genus page should include. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cockateil unfortunately fizzled, but this is a good candidate in the field of parrotness. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genus level is good. Not as scary as birds of prey, a massive challenge, pigeons depress me (our local Wood Pigeons have learned to hang on the bird feeders), and I've nothing on the eagle jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Species table looks good

[edit]

I just scrolled down - hadn't seen the species table - cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to merge the species list into the species table; no need for duplication. No point in merging the hypotheticals unless we have any images (unlikely). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be confusing (with or without images) if the hypotheticals were listed with the established species in a table. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the table in a separate template? Makes it harder to find and edit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

A nice set of wild Scarlet Macaws in flight [1] Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded to commons the one you have linked. Snowman (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

expansion

[edit]

The HBW is actually pretty light on these guys, but I've been trying to add some text which can get fleshed out later. Can anyone find anything on how monogamous these guys are (breed for life, that kind of thing?) Also a bit more on their morphology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have Forshaw's Parrots of the world, but I am also wasting time on wikipedia when I need to be doing my tax...aaargh :P Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Forshaw has very little on the genus as a whole. I did manage to stick in a ref or two though. The other thing which'd be good is some of the molecular studies to show what the genus is related to.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - what to do before GA nomination then

[edit]

Hello all, this article is looking good (but is it 'Good' yet...). I note there is a cleanup tag in one section, otherwise what do folks think need doing before nominating it at WP:GAN? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The genus was defined by French naturalist Bernard Germain de Lacépède in 1799. - is mentioned in lead but not in body of text - this could be discussed and expanded upon under taxonomy section. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need more detail on hypothetical extinct species (especially the section with cleanup tag). Might need critique of Rothchild's book to included some of the mistakes in the book, and the hypothetical nature of colour illustrations of the hypothetical extinct species or mythical species. The linked individual species pages of hypothetical extinct species need a clean up. Might need a new category, "Hypothetical extinct species", for articles on the hypothetical extinct species to differentiate them from extinct species, and might need a special icon in the taxobox on the "species" pages for hyptotheticals other than an extinct classification. This should help to reduce the confusion relating to the mythical or hypothetical species. Do images of the hypotheticals belong on this page? Should the table on the hypotheticals be moved to a separate page? If colour illustrations are kept on the page, their hypothetical nature should be clear. Snowman (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Identification - the main difficulty is between the Great Green Macaw and the Military Macaw, and tips for identification would be helpful. There may be better images on commons of these two parrots, but it needs an expert to identify them from previously unlabeled photographs in which the size of the parrots are not apparent and the colours may not be absolutely reliable. It is much easier to distinguish between the Blue-and-gold Macaw and the Blue-throated Macaw and we have some good illustrations of them, nevertheless, a brief comment on identification would be helpful here too, I think. Could go in description section. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breeding sections is kind of light - no info on clutch size, incubation times, which sex incubates when, fledging times that kind of thing. Also a summary of conservation issues and conservation projects (like this one [2] would be nice. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the hypothetical species are considered plausible today, what should be done about this? The two others are as dubious as some other species that are not present in the template. One which even has an article, Dominican Green-and-yellow Macaw, isn't in the template either. Oddly, it isn't in the 2012 book Extinct Birds, which is otherwise very comprehensive. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose the Macaw article be merged into this article. I came up with this idea while searching the subject in ES and FR Wikipedia. I noticed the other languages don't have a Macaw article, but refer directly to a translated version of Ara (Genus) and link back to this English page for the EN translation. I'm not a familiar reader of these bird articles so I am not sure how people generally resolve these naming issues, but it seems to be consistent that this article has the correct name for the subject. Alan.ca (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there are other genera referred to as macaw, so it wouldn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. Macaw consists of multiple genera, not just Ara. It suggests that the ES and FR wikipedias contain an error. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the messed up interwiki's at Macaw, so this should be better now. because of the motivation for the merger is now gone, I removed the tags. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work Kim, but I would like to give others a chance to comment before we remove the banner. Alan.ca (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking into the subject further and the point raised here about the Macaw being almost a meta category of various types of birds appears to be correct. If the macaw is just a meta classification, should the Macaw article just be a list referring to the genera? I noticed the articles starts to talk about feeding behaviour for example and wouldn't that be more linked to the genera than the meta category as a whole? Alan.ca (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the merge proposal is nonsense. The definition of Macaw in the on-line OED is "Any of various large long-tailed parrots (often with vivid plumage) belonging to the genus Ara and certain related genera, native to tropical and subtropical America." Snowman (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to have more than a list article pointing to the "genus Ara and certain related genera"? My goal was to minimize content duplication. Alan.ca (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kangaroo, wallaroo and wallaby have the same problem. None are clades, and are somewhat arbitrary groupings. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ara (genus). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the template into the article

[edit]

Is there any reason why this genus template[3] has to be separated from the article? It only makes it harder to edit, and the template below isn't separate either. I see it is transcluded at List of macaws, but I'm not sure why that is needed either, it could just be copied over. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ara_(bird)&oldid=1216967895"