Talk:Old World warbler

Untitled

Acanthizidae has been replaced by Pardalotidae now - essenialy the same family but with the pardalotes added. The pardalotes may eventually be split off again, in which case the remainer will become Acanthizidae once again. But we should mention these old families, because a lot of people are familiar with them, and they will be in textbooks for quite a few years to come. No need to change the text of this entry, this is set out in the entry it links to, just a FYI. Tannin 16:50 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

Quick note on bird names and English grammar - I've edited out a whole lot of gramatically incorrect hyphens. These were largely put in names by one or two "ivory tower" museum workers, resulting in invented group names like "Bush-Warbler": neglecting the fact that English grammar does not normally allow a hyphen before a capital letter. Many subsequent texts have also edited out these hyphens; here, I have followed MacKinnon & Phillipps A Field Guide to the Birds of China for style, thus: "Bush Warbler", though some others use the equally respectable "Bush-warbler". In the case of Leptopoecile, the name has perhaps more often been given in the form "Tit-warbler" and I've done this here too, rather than MacKinnon & Phillipps' "Tit Warbler" - in this case, because it is two bird names combined, rather than a habitat or colour etc., with a bird name. MPF 00:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

wrentit

The wrentit, Chamaea fasciata, is surely a member of the babblers (Timaliidae), at least according to the AOU checklist and the Sibley Guide to Birds. I'm kind of new here, any objections on my moving it before I write a new piece on it? Sabine's Sunbird 19:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The listings on Wikipedia follow Handbook of Birds of the World, chosen because it's a modern but not too controversial source. Most lists do not yet go as far as Sibley/AOU, so IMHO it is best to leave Wrentit where it is and add a taxonomic comment.

If we start mixing taxonomic systems, other than in regional bird lists, the whole structure will fall apart. Whereas Wrentit on its own wouldn't matter, Sibley changes to, say, Ciconiiformes would. I have to say that having Wrentit as a member of an otherwise entirely Old World group seems counterintuitive to say the least. jimfbleak 05:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The wrentit, whether an old-world warbler or a babbler, is a pretty counter-intuative bird regardless. The Old world warblers are not well represented at all in America either, except for the gnatcatchers, and they certainly aren't closely related to the wrentit. The case for the wrentit being a babbler, or it's own family, is nothing new. And I've ceratinly read an article or two that blasts the HBOW for being very conservative. However, I accept that it is difficult to find one all-over solution to organise the taxonomy of all the world's birds. Is there a talk page where this is discussed? I'd like to mosey on over and read more about this. in the meantime I'll write the entry for wrentit and leave it in Sylvidae, but make the taxonomic questions very clear.Sabine's Sunbird 16:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a part of the Wikiproject:tree of life which deals with taxonomic issues, but I can't remember the exact title of either the ToL or the taxonomic offshoot. There are probably 2000 bird articles, so you will appreciate the importance of sticking to one overall structure, especially as any alternative is also open to criticism. Just within the English-speaking world, the AOU, HANZAB, the BOU and the South Africans all use different classifications, with the AOU the most drastically at odds with the others. Your solution seems fine to me, look forward to the article. jimfbleak 06:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Japanese Bush-Warbler

For the Kigo article, I want to find the appropriate wikilink for uguisu (鶯, Japanese Bush-Warbler [sometimes translated as Japanese nightingale ], Cettia diphone). From other internet sources, the species seems to be in the Family Sylviidae (see [1]), so I assume this is the correct wikilink. Please correct me if I am wrong. BlankVerse ∅ 13:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Wren warblers

In twenty years of active birding and reading on five continents, I have never heard "wren warbler" applied to this group. If, pace britanica it has any validity at all in can only be in the very old usage of eg willow wren as the (very) old name for Willow Warbler. jimfbleak 18:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everything We Know Is Wrong

So more recent DNA analyses indicate that Sylviidae is a totally paraphyletic clusterbomb (to be polite) of morphological snafus -- and probably actually seven to eight different families, with the real irony being that Sylvia is closer to timaliid babblers than to the rest of the "warblers"! [2] So, how long should we give until discarding the current WP guideline of HBW and going with the results of Jonsson & Fjeldså 2006 / Alstrom et al. (2006), et cetera? What a curse it is to live in such taxonomically "interesting times"! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 04:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, those are some sweeping and facinating changes. I'm going to link this to the Project:Bird page with your question. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

proposal to split this page

I propose splitting this page into two articles. One, Old World warbler, will contain most all the information on this page and will treat the Old World warbler as a folk taxonomy with clear links to all the groups the birds have been split into. The second, [Sylviidae]], will be the family page for the much reduced family. At present having both articles together does the family article a diservice. Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree with that split. Makes no sense at all to leave it like it is. MeegsC | Talk 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too - your proposal is sensible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Old World warbler. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211170240/http://www.aou.org/checklist/index.php3 to http://www.aou.org/checklist/index.php3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/public/contributionsupplementalmaterials/h/y/b/7/hyb7fme16147k0d3/archive1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060521183015/http://www.molecularevolution.org/resources/references/files/cibois_et_al_2001.pdf to http://www.molecularevolution.org/resources/references/files/cibois_et_al_2001.pdf

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) 11:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)