Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of parrots/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of parrots edit

List of parrots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I worked really hard on this (there are 350 species of parrots so this was really tedious). I based this list off of list of cetaceans, which I've also worked on.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very nice list! The table needs formatting though because it is way too wide, it doesn't fit on my screen and I don't have a small screen! Mattximus (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I have a very big screen because the table fits perfectly for me. I'm not sure how to make the table fit onto different sized screens other than shrinking it (which wouldn't fix anything), any ideas?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but I have a similar problem in an older list. If you use chrome, simply zoom in a bit (hold control and scroll mouse wheel) to see what most users see. I could tell right away you have a very big screen, but unfortunately you are probably the 1%. I'm not good with formatting but there should be an easy fix. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask at the Teahouse   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found the problem. It appears you are forcing the table to have "width:1645px;" and also force the font size to 0.1%? I think the table normally auto-formats for different screen sizes, but the way you have it, it forces it to be a certain width which is far too large for almost every screen. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't do that then all the tables end up being different sizes left-to-right, so it'll end up like this. The font size thing is just for sorting purposes, you can't actually see the letters at 0.1% font size so I just used it so, when sorted, everything would come in the correct order.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it fits on my normal screen, and I tried on a smaller screen. I see what you mean about looking weird, but that's a second problem. The first problem of fitting properly on different screens seems to be fixed. Mattximus (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed the second problem. Check the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's much better on my tiny work laptop. Do note that all of the single-bird tables are missing the purple border, though, because they don't have the inner table. Will return to review this list later if it doesn't get enough eyes; I definitely want to support broader lists like this. --PresN 19:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the border problem   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • The title 'List of parrots' is unclear. It could mean a list of famous parrots, for example. I would prefer 'List of parrot species'.
If it was a list of famous parrots, the title would be "list of famous parrots"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - and a list of parrot species should be titled 'List of parrot species'. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Psittaciformes comprise three main lineages: Strigopoidea, Psittacoidea and Cacatuoidea." This repeats the information in the previous paragraph with duplicate links.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the Psittacidae". Is this a typo? You appear to be comparing the Psittacidae family with the Cacatuoidea superfamily.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lorikeets were previously regarded as a third family, Loriidae." Third to what?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assume the IUCN red list for that species is the citation." I would leave out the word "assume".
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All extinct species listed are recently extinct species, defined as going extinct after 1500 C.E., according to the IUCN.[22] The dagger symbol "†" indicates the taxon as extinct." Perhaps "All extinct species listed went extinct after 1500 C.E.,[22] and are indicated by the dagger symbol "†"."
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following classification is based on the most recent proposal as of 2012." "most recent" is recentism and may become outdated. Proposal by who and does it have any official status?
proposal should be plural (fixed). Also, it says "since 2012" so it's up to date as of 2012 (so it doesn't need to be revamped every year)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You use the word "recent" (or "recently") five times in the article. The word is discouraged as it may become out of date - e.g. if the classifications were revised in 2017 - and no one was then updating the article - it would then become incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The range and picture columns should not be sortable.
I don't think it's possible to have certain columns not sortable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can make a column unsortable by inserting "class="unsortable" |" before the heading. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether web refs have access dates. I am not sure of the rule, but I think they all should have them.
I don't see any web refs without an access date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. I was referring to the journal articles, but I see the guidance does not require an access date for these. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some confusion over the Forshaw books. Note 10 gives Forshaw and Cooper with date 1978, but in further reading it is 1981, and harv linked although the note does not link to it. Note 29 is the only harv link in the article and the source is listed under further reading. As you use both the books in further reading as sources, I suggest deleting the further reading section and giving full details of the book in note 29.
That's where all the harv linked refs go – in the Further reading section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that your treatment of refs is correct. 1. You can use what reference style you prefer, but you should be consistent. You cannot have one harv ref (you only have one) and the rest not. 2. The 'Further reading' section (if any) should be for works which you are suggesting to the reader, but which have not been used as a source in the article. If you head the citations section "References", the list of sources would normally be headed "Sources", not "Further reading". 3. You have not replied to the point that you give details of Parrots of the World, 2nd edition, twice with different publication dates. 4. There is no reason to have a separate section for the Forshaw books. You give the details of other books such as ref 12 Sibley and 30 Lendon in the references, and do not repeat them in "Further reading". For consistency, you should treat the Forshaw books the same way. Nikki can you please advise whether these comments are correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. You can decide to use harv refs for books only and not journals, but it shouldn't be for just one book and not others. 2. Correct. 3. Interesting - the two ISBNs lead to WorldCat records with different publishers. Was that intended? If so, one should be 2nd and the other 2nd revised. 4. See point 1.
Further sources comments: You are inconsistent in how authors are being formatted, whether book publisher locations are included and if so how these are formatted; FN12 should have an ISBN; and book citations should generally include page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed the ref issues   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a first rate article and an enormous amount of work has clearly gone into it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I still think that "List of parrot species" would give the reader a clearer idea of the subject of the article, but it is not a deal-breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review by PresN
  • "regions in the Southern Hemisphere, as well." - no comma
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Strigopoidea were considered part of the Psittacoidea, but recent studies place this group of New Zealand species at the base of the parrot tree next to the remaining members of the Psittacoidea, as well as all members of the Cacatuoidea." - "were considered" is missing a time, and the second half is awkward; perhaps "The Strigopoidea were once considered part of the Psittacoidea, but recent studies place this group of New Zealand species as their own superfamily next to the Cacatuoidea and remaining members of the Psittacoidea.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colourful feathers with high levels of psittacofulvin resist the feather-degrading bacterium Bacillus licheniformis better than white ones" - this sentence just pops up in the middle of things without any strong connection to the sentences before or after.
not sure why that was there. Removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, paragraph 3 duplicates the first sentence of paragraph 2- that needs to be fixed.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if a range map is not available, there will be a description of the bird's range with a citation provided" -> " if a range map is not available, a description of the bird's range is provided" (better tone, and of course there's a citation)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If a citation is not provided for this, the IUCN red list for that species is the citation." -> "Ranges are based on the IUCN red list for that species unless otherwise noted."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tribe Androglossini: seven genera." and "Subfamily Coracopsinae: one genus with several species." - 2 lines out of the Psittacoidea section end in a period, and should not
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhh, I really wish all of the range maps were in the same style. Not going to oppose over it, but, ugh.
  • Tables are all missing colscopes - so, "!Common name!!Scientific name!!IUCN Red List Status!!Range!!Picture" should be:

!scope="col"|Common name
!scope="col"|Scientific name
!scope="col"|IUCN Red List Status
!scope="col"|Range
!scope="col"|Picture

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the sorting option from the range and picture columns (!scope="col" class="unsortable"|Range)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, you need rowscopes on the first cell of each row in the tables: "|Timneh parrot" -> "!scope="row"|Timneh parrot". This may adjust the formatting to bold the first column; this can be reverted by doing "!scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"|Timneh parrot" instead
*400 parrots later* done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, since it's a bit odd- the reason there's no citation for all of the tables is because the whole thing is cited to that string of cites in "Classification", [6][7][18][24][25][26][27], yes? Except for the ranges, which are to the bit in the IUCN column.
yes (and also the IUCN links)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, sorry about all the work on rowscopes. Still really, really wish there was a consistent image style for ranges, but asking you to make several hundred range maps for this list is a bit much, so... Support. --PresN 03:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to you and some other Wikipedians can create 400 range maps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry you've been waiting so long for further review comments...

  • Why is "Psittaciformes" in bold in the lead, and not "parrots"?!
to avoid bolding a wikilink (someone told me this was against WP:MOS)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IPA is usually given in parentheses with an IPA link to explain it to non-experts.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " of Psittaciformes until" no point in linking this as it redirects back to the article on Parrot which you've already linked.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • " Nestoridae and Strigopidae." similar comment applies.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to see the references inline to each item in the Classification section rather than that list of refs [9][10][17][4][23][24][25]...
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are the 402 species of birds that make" vs "consists of 387 extant species belonging to 87 genera" - you should make it clear in the lead that not all 402 species are extant.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "18 genera" it's legitimate here to say "Eighteen" since all other numbers are in words in this section, and MOS:NUM would support it in any case.
words for single-digit numbers, numbers for multiple-digit numbers
Per MOS, Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely aesthetically, I don't like the way the table formats (i.e. column widths) change from section to section.
I don't think I can fix that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also prefer to see each parrot referenced inline.
It's the IUCN link. If it was a formal inline citation I don't think you could find much of anything in that mess of a ref section.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an awful one, for WP:ACCESS we expect each image to have alt text. Ouch.
*screams internally*   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: We actually haven't been enforcing alt text as a requirement, and I'd argue that it's not helpful in this case- the alt text will always be "A bird. Name: this row's bird" or "a map, with a chunk of x continent filled in". --PresN 12:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but I would argue that correctly craft alt text wouldn't simply say "a bird". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example of what alt text would look like for African grey parrot (P. erithacus)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change [[File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg|180px]] to [[File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg|180px|alt=African grey parrot]] Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to PresN, that kind of alt text wouldn't be helpful at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that ignoring accessibility requirements completely is a good idea when we're trying to assess the finest work that Wikipedia produces. Featured Lists really ought to be setting the best example for other editors who will look to them for best practice. I've just added alt text to the lead image as an example of what extra information alt text might bring to someone who relies on assistive technology. It is true that in many cases the description of the image will be mundane, but you need to ask yourself what the purpose of including each image is? If it's purely decorative, then I'd say the images should not be there. If it's to show viewers what that species of parrot looks like, then I suggest that you ought to be also providing as much of that information to blind visitors as you can. For example, a screen reader coming to the image File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg is likely to hear something like "Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee link File colon Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee". That's really not very helpful. I suggest that setting the alt text to something like "A grey parrot with black beak, white face and a short red tail" would prove far more useful to someone who can't see the image (for whatever reason). I know it's a lot of work, but it really is worthwhile. You might also want to consider whether you should be showing alt text for File:Congo Grey Parrot range.jpg as "Southern regions of Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon, and throughout Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo". --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could I possibly get some help with that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring it altogether is a bad idea. The guideline suggests that it's enough if we just mention the name of the species in these kinda lists. I know it can be tedious, but is it that difficult? —Vensatry (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blind person: *uses alt text*, alt text: "african grey parrot", blind person: "wow, thank you for that helpful description"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that not every person who uses a screen reader is completely blind, and not every blind person has been so since birth? Plenty of visitors using assistive technology are perfectly aware of colours. I must say that your thoughtless attitude to those less fortunate than yourself does nothing to persuade me to help you further. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For all intents and purposes, lets say that this reader is legally blind or not blind from birth. If they read the first item on the list, it'll read "African grey parrot", so they don't need alt text to know that the picture in that specific row is of an African grey parrot.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a sighted reader will see that the parrot is in fact grey; that it has a black bill, a white mask and a short red tail. Why do you think the visually impaired reader shouldn't be given that information as well? If you don't think that information is relevant, then why is the picture there anyway? --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the alt text just reading "african grey parrot" as redundant because the blind reader will already know it is a picture of an african grey parrot. On the other hand, if the alt text reads "A grey parrot with a black beak, white face and a short red tail" then I can support the use of alt text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's good. I do think the pictures add information (and interest) to the list, so it's only fair to try to share a little of that with visually impaired visitors. Additionally, the images do occasionally provide much more than you would expect from the name: that Red-fronted parrot doesn't seem to have a red feather anywhere on its front! --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections 4 and 5 need an intro section to clarify why they are not in 3. This probably should be present in the intro too. Nergaal (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like why the True parrots section is broken up into three families?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"true" implies the rest are fake. Yet list show that they are parrots. the last 2 categories should explain why are they parrots but not true parrots. Nergaal (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"True parrots" is just a common name, like "toothed whale" (not all "toothed whales" are actually "whales", most are dolphins). It's just a colloquial term for the family, nothing more. If you want a ref for that, most everything says something along the lines of "...true parrots (Psittacoidea)..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility check from RexxS

  • The use colour meets our Manual of Style's requirements both in contrast between foreground and background and in ensuring that information is not conveyed by colour alone. The possible exception is the table of IUCN Red List categories, where the text is not not always clearly defined against the background; however, those are best viewed as text-icons where the colour conveys the information to sighted visitors, while the text conveys the information to screen readers. That's not an accessibilty problem.
  • All text complies with MOS:FONTSIZE.
  • The tables meet the requirements of MOS:TABLE.
  • The sections all comply with MOS:HEADING and WP:GOODHEAD.
  • Dunkleosteus77 has put a mammoth effort into ensuring that each image has appropriate alt text. The job is nearly finished, so I thought it worth commending him on the results. @The Rambling Man: does that meet your expectations now?

This list is a comprehensive collection on a topic of both general and specialist interest. I'd be happy to recommend it to any aspiring list-builder as a fine example, and support its promotion to Featured List. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support firstly, a massive thank you and congratulations to Dunkleosteus77 for such an unbelievably great effort, and such a sincerely positive attitude in this nomination. A thanks also to RexxS for his ongoing guidance in relation to accessibility issues. I know that when I was previously a director etc, I placed a lot of emphasis on ensuring these more technical pages were still usable to all, and RexxS has been indispensable in helping me make such assessments. Good work all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The list looks comprehensive and well researched – Dunkleosteus77's work is breathtaking. That said, I agree with Dudley Miles on renaming the title to 'List of parrot species'. Also, please add page no(s). for ref#19. —Vensatry (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
added page numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director note – It looks as if this FLC has a large amount of support, but we still need a source review for formatting and reliability, and a test of whether the links are working. Spot-checks of a few sources would be nice as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also everyone, keep in mind that there are about 150 more images in need of alt text. I've done about 250 by myself so I'm a bit tired of it, to say the least, and some help on this would be much appreciated. I've gotten through the cockatoos and the New Zealand parrots, so the 150 awaiting alt text are, as of right now, Bourke's parrot and onward in the True parrots section. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 100 more images in need of alt text. I've done about 300 by myself so I'm a bit tired of it, to say the least, and some help on this would be much appreciated. I've gotten through the cockatoos and the New Zealand parrots, so the 100 awaiting alt text are, as of right now, Kuhl's lorikeet and onward in the True parrots section. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can offer both a source and image review (if it hasn't been done) since this FL has been here for a long time. It would be shame for it to be archived despite the large support. I may start tomorrow. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review—looks like things are in order, formatting-wise, with just a few comments:
    • Usually it looks better to shift the edition into |edition= for a book citation, like in note 2.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In note 6, it would read better if you used |edition=1st just to get the ordinal number instead of the cardinal number.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the reliability, nothing would fail that prong of the source review test. I'll try to spotcheck a few of the sources later on today. Imzadi 1979 → 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck—picking some sources at random:
    • FN2: verified
    • FN7: not verified; I could not find any reference to that content in the article, unless I'm missing something.
replaced   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN12: verified
    • FN18: verified
    • FN22: not verified; I'm not seeing anything about the dagger character in that citation. As a side note, I'm not sure that such a statement really needs a citation since it's serving to act as a legend for how we're indicating extinction status, even if it's a standard convention.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN26: partially verified; the source only says "Australia", but not "Southwest Australia".
the source is the IUCN link, I'm not sure why I put that other ref there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN31: verified
  • As noted, the two citations don't appear to back the prose, but the one is probably a bit superfluous anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Snowmanradio
  • Spix's macaw is classified as Critically Endangered (possibly extinct in the wild). It is difficult to prove extinct in the wild, but none are known in the wild. Snowman (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should I make a note of it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is significant and should be mentioned. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it right to split off the Aztec parakeet as a separate species? IOC have not split it. It does not have a separate page on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the list follows the IUCN Redlist which splits off Aztec parrot as a separate species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this controversial?
some authors split them, some don't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the status of the Jamaican parakeet as a separate species established? Snowman (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
according to the IUCN Redlist, yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this controversial?
some authors split them, some don't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is odd that some of the species names on the list appear as red links, which possible indicates that there appear to be taxonomy or nomenclature inconsistencies with this list and the rest of the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but the list follows the IUCN Redlist   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy is difficult. The Wiki does not automatically follow the IUCN for taxonomy. Why follow the IUCN Red list? Snowman (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what should I have followed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, did the last alt text bits myself. That... was a lot of parrots. This appears to have cleared up the last issue- there are a few redlinks, but not very many, and they all appear to legitimately be missing articles for that species/subspecies. On an unrelated note, it appears that this list completely supercedes List of parrot species classified by families, which is just the true parrots but without any additional information (and with quite a bit less, and an awful name), unlike List of Strigopoidea, so that should probably get redirected. This nomination has been open way, way too long, and I'm very please to finally close it as promoted. Congratulations! --PresN 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_parrots/archive1&oldid=1138487169"