Talk:Antbird

Split

I think perhaps the sepcies list could get split out into its own article as per Procellariidae and List of Procellariidae. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, particularly since they are both now so long. Good job with this page. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I split it out. Makes this page more readable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Vandalism - why is this page not locked? All daily articles ought to be locked. --Bellatea (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The refs have a few issues, esp

1. refs within refs -nasty - first one at ref 5. Should be | "[url title]"|format = PDF eg Schulenberg, T. S. (1983). "Foraging behaviour, ecomorphology and systematic of some antshrikes (Formicariidae: Thamnomanes). (PDF) Wilson Bulletin. 95: 505–521
2. The birdlife refs, first one at ref 9, should link to the wikipedia article rather than the pointless home page, imho, also dates not linked. If you use a template, user preferences are able to override your formatting, important when 3/4/08 means different things to US and UK editors so I'd do 9 and subsequent as BirdLife International (2007) Species factsheet: Herpsilochmus parkeri. Retrieved on ? 3 April 2008, ? 4 March 2008
3. I don't know whether links from doi or format (refs 1, 21) are MoS or not, but it's neater and more consistent to link them all from the title as per comment 1 above
4. ref 28 has different date style which is also unlinked, and although otherwise correct is differently formatted compared to the similar Birdlife refs
5. ndashes for page ranges

I've not made any of these changes, since if this is still unreviewed in a few days, I might do it myself. jimfbleak (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the stuff you mentioned (I have always thought that linking to PDFs was a matter of personal taste, but who can keep up with the mandated changes of the MOS?). As for ndahses, well, I don't actually know what they are, and don't really care either. People seem to get very het-up about them when reviewing, so I guess I'll have to learn about them. How tedious. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The real point was not necessarily that you should link to the pdf, but that refs within refs is always going to be wrong. I've fixed the dashes. I know you don't like citation templates, but I think that it's worth using cite journal at least, because then you can run DOI bot which converts the hyphens to ndashes, adds a doi if there is one, and other maintenance stuff. jimfbleak (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Review starts here jimfbleak (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarify

There was a clarify me tag in the systematics section next to the line Several of these, which have always been difficult to assign, seem to form a third ... clade, asking -what are the first and second clades within Thamnophilidae?. The answer is just two lines up (Two major clades - most antshrikes and other larger, strong-billed species as well as Herpsilochmus versus the classical antwrens and other more slender, longer-billed species), so I removed the tag. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map is inaccurate. Barred Antshrike occurs as far north as central Tamaulipas, only a couple hundred miles South of Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natureguy1980 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the map I used to base it on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the map per a closer examination of an alternative map (that of the species in question). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some final thoughts before FAC

I get the impression that at least with my last bird FAC, and also with Jims, was that maybe we didn't polish the lead as much as the rest of the article, which I think led to Tony finding faults and then not reading further. The lead is often the last thing I do as I don't know what should go in it until I finish the rest content-wise (can't speak for Jim). Thus I feel it is really important to get it as good as possible.

Para 3 is an issue as it is a bit repetitive iwth the 'some species' repeated a bit, so any way this can be broken is good. 'A minority of..' is ungainly - how many species is it? If just two we can just mention them. The same with how many species are threatened with extinction, maybe mention the worst off. More later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A good idea. I'll get on that. I'm not really rushing to get this nominated, I really want to get it right first. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some possible tweaking of lead for variation/tightening:

• para 1 known -> named
• para 3 Most species in the antbird family -> The majority of species in the antbird family
• Many species join -> Many join
• A minority of them -> A minority
• para 4 each parent-> each adult
• para 5 Bit jerky and repetitious, what about something like A number of species are threatened with extinction due to human activities. The principal threat is habitat loss, since habitat fragmentation leads to increased nest predation. Antbirds are not targeted by hunters or the pet trade. ? jimfbleak (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tinkered with the lead per suggestions. I haven't changed known/named and each adult/parent as I don't really agree with that, but I'm not to bothered if other people do. Thanks for the thoughts, any more? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some questions

Are the songs really "simple uncomplicated notes". You also say the songs are "long". And what's the difference between "distinctive" and "species-specific"?

"some loudsongs have a territorial purpose and are given when birds meet at the edges of their respective territories". I dislike "respective" in general and don't see a need for it here. Can the article say "at the boundary between their territories" or does that imply too well-defined a boundary? Can it say "when birds meet where their territories adjoin" or is that too many dependent clauses?

Are the seemingly extra spaces in the Morton and Derrickson ref correct? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Distinctive refers to their songs generally, not with regard to their songs to other species. I guess it is slightly redundant, any suggestions for rewordings. I've made all the other changes you've suggested. Thanks, and keep em coming if you have the time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So what you mean is that you can tell antbird songs from other birds', and if you know them you can also tell the different species' songs apart? Maybe "the family's songs are distinctive as a group, and each species can be recognized by its songs"? There must be a way to improve that.

Should there be anything about the family's range on Caribbean islands? Is it just T&T, or just the islands off the South American coast?

I'd say the Barred Antshrike reaches northern Mexico.

Are any species not found in the tropics? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1) I'll check my source and get back to you.

2)As far as I know they only occur on really really coastal islands. They haven't spread to any of the Antilles.

3) How about with split the difference and say central?

4) A few, but not many, and they barely poke into either side. I'm not sure how many though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

more questions

Some species may perch-glean, perching on a branch watching for prey and snatching it by reaching forward, where others may sally from a perch and snatch prey on the wing.

Does that really mean "may", or can we omit the word (if they perch-glean or sally habitually)?

Fixed Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of "ant-followers", is there any difference between "amongst species" and "among species"? If not, I think you should be consistent. As "amongst" isn't in my vocabulary, you could choose better than I could.

Either can be used. I don't see why one has to be consistent but I'm not bothered, so fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to say more about how fragmentation affects mixed-species flocks, though maybe that should go at mixed-species feeding flock. Maybe there will be a more precise way to describe it than "hits". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This one will take a bit of expansion, I'll try and deal with it tonight. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, finally. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is voice under morphology? Also the section on morphology covers more than just that. Shyamal (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that - it is because the section is sometimes known as description and calls are descriptive. But the focus of what I wrote is more behavioural, so maybe I'll move it. Would you suggest renaming morphology, what, description? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it too and although it seems ok to us bird folks- "description" sounds rather vague, as if the whole article wasnt one. "Appearance", "Identification", "Characteristics".... not sure. Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

periods, sexual dimorphism

S's S, maybe you should make the references consistent as to whether initials are followed by full stops.

On a more important note, I have a sentence for you if you want to add it:

In some genera, such as ''Myrmotherula'', species are better distinguished by female plumage than by male.<ref>Rice, N. H. & A. M. Hutson (2003) "Antbirds". Pp. 446–449 ''in'' [[Chris Perrins|Perrins, C.]] (editor). (2003). ''Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds.'' Firefly Books. ISBN 1-55297-777-3</ref>

But I don't have a source saying this is uncommon in birds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks Jerry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing DOIs/PMIDs

This article is missing about a dozen available DOIs for the journal cites. There are also some PMID and JSTOR index links available, as shown here. Since the article does not use citation templates I can't automatically add in these extra links. If it's not okay to add citation templates to the article then would a regular contributor to the article please add in these index links manually. Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antbird. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ansp.org/research/biodiv/ornithology/pdf/antbird-paraphyly.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Cute birds

Wow those are some cute birds — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanTartaglia (talk • contribs) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antbird. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.universia.com.br/html/noticia/noticia_dentrodocampus_bjhbh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509041100/http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~lundiana/full/vol612005/8.pdf to http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~lundiana/full/vol612005/8.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) 01:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antbird. 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/20110722231104/http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx/links/neo/revista/pdf%20revistas/14-3/14_289-294.pdf to http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx/links/neo/revista/pdf%20revistas/14-3/14_289-294.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.yanayacu.org/Ecuador_nests/Publicaciones/Greeney%202004_dysithamnus.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716235014/http://www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/SievingK/PUBS/differential_extinction.pdf to http://www.wec.ufl.edu/faculty/SievingK/PUBS/differential_extinction.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717040330/http://www.rnr.lsu.edu/pstouffer/StoufferBierregaardEcology95.pdf to http://www.rnr.lsu.edu/pstouffer/StoufferBierregaardEcology95.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) 13:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)