Talk:Alisterus

File:King Parrot Feeding.ogg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:King Parrot Feeding.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:King Parrot Feeding.ogg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Should this page exist at all?

This page says it is only a "stub" article, and indeed there is very little info here. THere is quite a comprehensive pae called Australian King Parrot. Should this page simply redirect to that one?

Requested move 23 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move this article to Alisterus and the disambiguation page to King parrot at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

---

King parrot → Alisterus –

Pitch the First: As per WP:Birds guidance, and a possible shortcut to consensus, IOC gives only this name for this genus.

Pitch the Second: Ambiguous common name for a taxon, well established and once preferred name for unrelated species also found in Australia. Every text I looked at cross references this common name to an eastern or western species in different genera, I could not see any ref that equated "King Parrot(s)" with Alisterus, or any that states it refers to its three species in three different nations. Accepted names for higher taxa ought to used, for all the reasons that everybody cites systematic names for organisms. The relevant policies here are V, RS, and especially NPOV, and this easily satisfies Criteria one through four; the proposed title is what makes any common names in the article's content meaningful. "… a simple and obvious title". As for Criteria 5, Consistency, there are examples in the Animalia taxonomy of both approaches. There is certain to be other examples like this, perhaps subject to perennial disputes on which common name to favour, but the overwhelming number would be using systematic names for taxa (and certainly for genera and higher). cygnis insignis 01:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Addendum. (Pitch the Third, read today at favourite resource):

Latin had been the medium of scientific publications and correspondence for hundreds of years. Birds were named in lengthy diagnoses, often including folk-names and foreign names, to ensure that the reader knew what species was being dealt with. John Ray (1678), in describing the Western Stonechat, listed, "Stone-smich, or Stone-chatter, or Moor-titling. Oenanthus nostra tertia: Muscicapa tertia, Aldrov. The Rubetra of Bellonius as we judge, which Gesner makes the same with his Todtenvogel, or Flugenstecherlin." Linnaeus’s aims were to describe relationships and systematise the natural world, by providing simple two-part names for each species, using words taken directly from classical Latin or transliterated from Greek or other, mainly European, languages. For the Western Stonechat he coined the simple binomen Motacilla rubicola (now Saxicola rubicola). The importance of a system which identifies a species in any tongue is apparent when one considers the various species world-wide sharing the substantive names Robin, Blackbird, Warbler, Sparrow, and Finch, and the confusing variety and limitations of vernacular names. — 'Introduction to Key to Scientific Names in Ornithology', James A. Jobling, May 2014

Alternate proposal. (Pitch the Fourth and Last): Ignore this and find something better to do. cygnis insignis 00:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis, you've left out some details here, and I'm a little confused. I'm gathering that, in everyday conversation, "king parrot" refers to Alisterus scapularis in eastern Australia, and Purpureicephalus spurius in western Australia, and when Australians need to distinguish between the two species, they call them "eastern/western king parrot". Is that an accurate summary of the situation? Are there any other species that are called "king parrot"? Should king parrot (disambiguation) be moved to the base title? Plantdrew (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Thanks for clarifying one aspect of the current arrangement, and noting that related pages may need to be discussed. Common names are important, with context, those likely to be searched on need clear navigation. Someone in WA might use Purpureicephalus spurius, King Parrot, Western King Parrot, Pileated Parrot [from syn. Platycercus pileatus; avicultural], Red-capped Parrot, and several transliterations of an oral language group that precede all these names by a couple of hundred years [they are onomatopoeic, so could even be regarded as preceding our species, maybe genus, (people were informed by the birds, but I digress); I'm planning to try them out and see if their species has an opinion on how we name them]. If that answers the first question, and I always regret any confusion I cause, a literal summary is given by the Speciesbox in the article that led me here, splayed out for purposes of comparison:

| genus = Purpureicephalus

| parent_authority = Bonaparte, 1854

| species = spurius

| authority = (Kuhl, 1820)

| synonyms_ref= <ref name="AFD">{{cite web|url=https://biodiversity.org.au/

Clear enough to most, and there is a link that clarifies what this means if it is not. A glance at the display shows the species and genus in bold, which indicates that both taxonomic names redirect to the article (it happens to be monotypic [currently], so I'm okay [conditionally] with that being a common name for genus too). The automatic taxobox gives similar output for:

| taxon = Alisterus

which is correct, because it calls Template:Taxonomy/Alisterus

| rank = genus

| link = King parrot|Alisterus

Like the links in the subdivision of "king parrot", they bypass a redirect of the systematic name to the article: vernacular|taxon. Unlike those links in the article, a link through the redirect had an undesired effect: it would not appear emboldened. In a previous iteration of the template, the call was sometimes genus=informal leading to understandable confusion, correction, undoing, more confusion, and discussion, and more workarounds by those involved. Consequences of the problem of avoiding the obvious solution. The bold now works, but there is another effect: hover over the name Alisterus in the taxobox of one of the species, for example Moluccan king parrot and the redirect is bypassed to a lovely image with the text, "The king parrots are[!] three species of medium-sized parrots in[!] the genus Alisterus; the Australian king parrot, the Papuan king parrot, and the Moluccan king parrot. The three species are found in eastern Australia, New Guinea, and Indonesian islands including the Maluku Islands, respectively,", which I will fix to clarify is all the species of the page's supposed concept, the genus, not just some of them, and the whereabouts of other 'king parrots' the reader may have be looking for when pushed to this page by the engines and algorithms operating their device,. This is made more difficult by the current arrangement, and is not a little absurd and annoying when I consider that the title is based on arbitrary processes of selection, exclusion, preference, or invention of the single common [read: Englished] names that generally dominate the familiar and charismatic animals, specifically mammals and birds. Another consequence. The assertions made here as a consequence of side-lining taxonomy disseminates across and beyond this site. Further consequences, all of which are likely unhelpful. One place is at sister sites, if that is the reason that d:Q458164 is labelled "Moluccan King Parrot". I read that and think it ought to be changed, but not to remove the capitals.

Clarifying my response for Plantdrew's last two questions: I will try to find other species called King Parrot in the literature, though searches from the binomials are obviously more fruitful, because I am fond of nomenclature's etymology, history, context, variety and poetry of common names. I will also consider what I think should happen to the dab page, if anything.

My question—in earnest—to anyone who can answer is, what is the undesirable consequence of using Alisterus? — cygnis insignis 00:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support and move King parrot (disambiguation) to base title. The current title is not precise. Almost all of the incoming links to this title intend one of the two species known as "king parrot" in Australia. Incoming links can be made more precise/disambiguated to point to the appropriate species. Give the situation with the incoming links, I think it quite unlikely that readers are searching for "king parrot" and expecting to find information on the genus. They are searching for information on one of the species, and a disambiguation page will serve them better in finding the information they seek. Plantdrew (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

that too — cygnis insignis 15:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.