Jump to content

Talk:Anas

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

221.132.115.213 removed the interwiki links. For what purpose? I assumed that somebody would undo the edit, but now that it hasn't been done I wonder if there wasn't a purpose I haven't seen. If I can't see a purpose in a few days and nobody has responded to this issue I intend to undo his edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation of Phylogeny

[edit]

The presentation of the new phylogenies on here seems a little bit chaotic and illogical, and a number of statements need verification (I will tag some). Do all taxonomists agree that if shovelers etc. really are more closely related to the South American dabbling duck clade, they should be placed in three or four genera? Maybe this article could identify three likely clades based onstudies so far: shovelers etc., wigeons etc., and Anas sensu stricto. And can anyone verify that wigeons and their relatives (ie, gadwall and falcated ="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs) Note: by Anas sensu stricto, I meant the remainder of the genus, not just the mallard and black ducks. Innotata 19:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs) [reply]

[edit]

I was doing some reading on the article about the Anas genus of waterfowl birds when I clicked on the link to Yellow-billed Pintail and something disgusting and obscene came up. I can not even edit the link/direction article to fix it so someone with better knowledge or access should probably do something. Thanks for any help with this. Epf (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, someone hacked into the taxobox. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dodo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editorialized

[edit]

The tone seems a bit too editorialized for an encyclopedic article; for instance, does the following belong in the lead? Rather so? ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...it is rather the absence of a thorough review than lack of necessity that this genus is rather over-lumped.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anas. 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) 16:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anas&oldid=1198667902"