Talk:Black-shouldered kite

Australian native rodents
Well, blow me down! How did I manage not to know that? Sources I have now checked say up to 15 million years' worth, in fact, and about 60 spp, some recently discovered. Many apologies. I'll make sure the rodent page notes the fact. seglea 00:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Distribution
"They are also common throughout Southern Africa." Is this true for Elanus axillaris? See http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?lang=EN&avibaseid=67E74DD0BE9B257F&sec=map Marj (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Vocalizations
Does it need a section on their calls - not that they are particularly vocal. There is some published info. Marj (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What I generally do is a few sentences at the end of the description section, either with a vocalisation subheading (lvl 3 heading) or without depending on amouint of info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A good read.
One of the best Oz bird articles on all of Wikipedia.

I can certainly attest to the "... often following outbreaks of mouse plagues in rural areas". I do a lot of my work around the area of Dubbo, in central western NSW, an area greatly affected by the current (2011) plague. During the height of the plague in 2008-2009, there would have been easily ten times the number of these birds seen in the area than during the previous two years. Old_Wombat (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Old_Wombat. The plagues would be something to see! Marj (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Other synonyms
Parking this info here for now.

G.R. Gray (1843) gives the following synonyms: "Circus axillaris, Vieill.; Elanus melanopterus, V. & H., Elanus notatus, Gould." The Annals and magazine of natural history 11:189 

Addendum: Oh, of course Sharpe's ''Cat. Birds Brit. Mus.'' gives a more extensive synonomy, and also mentions Gray's article. 

Pelagic (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black-shouldered kite. 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/20110227025012/http://www.wildlife.org.au/magazine/editions/2008/winter/wam_kites.pdf to http://www.wildlife.org.au/magazine/editions/2008/winter/wam_kites.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001064754/http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52326 to http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52326
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001064743/http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52525&tree=0.1 to http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=52525&tree=0.1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

IUCN nomenclature
The last sentence in the intro reads: It is rated as least concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Red List of Endangered species. This and similar statements are very common in good and very good articles. But it is not efficient communication. We cannot reasonable assume that the reaer knows the definitions of the Red List categories. Try to take on the perspective of such a person. I think she would interpret this as: ''There is an organization that has made a list of endangered species and it is very little concerned about this species. Probably this means that it thinks that there is a very low risk that this species will go extinct.'' This is vaguely correct, but only vaguely. And IUCN means much more when they say least concern, but this is not what the words least concern means in themselves. Also, this sentence is an awkward and cumbersome way of saying that. I guess this way of expressing it is chosen because it is nearly as precise as possible and also most probably true (safe to say). But again, this comes at a steep cost in the way of low intelligibility. The intro should be concise and have high intelligibility. Reading the Wikipedia article on LC, I find that the definition rests on a deep and convoluted network of supporting defintitions, so I am not sure what to propose as replacement. But here is my best shot: There is a very low risk that the species will go extinct in the foreseeable future. very low risk could be wikilinked to least concern. It seems that many ornithologists are keen to mention IUCN. But knowledge about the existence and work of IUCN does not constitute knowledge about this bird species, so this knowledge does not belong in the knowledge that this article has the task of conveying. The Wikipedia article says that LC means the species is not on the Red List. But this expression gives the impression that it is. --Ettrig (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ettrig the lead is only a summary of the information in the article - in this case it is in the Conservation status section, where some further information is given. It is a tricky request you ask, as varying what definitions are risks veering into OR, and I don't find the parameters that convoluted at all. What you are asking is an easter egg link, and I don't see what difference there is between "very low risk" and "least concern". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) You are an extremely valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I find it difficult to imagine even how it is possible for someone to do what you do here. So your authority means a lot to me. Still, I think you are wrong in this case, so I will try at least one step further. (2) It is very common to think falsely that what is well known by oneself is obvious. Could this be the problem here? (3) The intro should be a summary, yes. But this is not an argument for writing long and with low intelligibility. In fact, this sentence is not a summary. The corresponding statement near the end of the article is longer (123ch -> 74ch). There is a motivation for this characterization, but no further explanation of what it means. (4) Repeating: That the information is from IUCN is not information about the species, it is only info about the info about the species. So, in the interest of conciseness, try to remove it. It is a least concern species. I think this doesn't feel good for either of us. I think the problem is that least concern doesn't stand on its own, it is sufficiently meaningful only as a reference to the definitions by IUCN. Maybe you think it is needed to be on the safe side with regard to truth. We dare not say this is the way it is, only that IUCN says so. If that is the case, then it should not be in the intro at all. Doubted statements are not important enough for the intro. (5) The original research worry is unwarranted. On the contrary, it is a very normal procedure in Wikipedia to rephrase what others have written, to paraphrase, but not to copy. (6) varying what definitions are risks veering into OR This statement feels almost like a restatement of my argument. Our task is to convey to the reader the info provided by IUCN (in this case). I say that the way it is currently done, it is difficult for the reader to understand what is really meant. You say that if we rephrase it, then there is a risk that it becomes so different that it states NEW information. If this is how you feel, then there is either a problem with your formulation (IUCNs) or with your understanding of what you have written. (7) If you don't see a difference between "very low risk" and "least concern", then it is unfair to call a link between them an easter egg, neither is it reasonable to fear OR. --Ettrig (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, you make fair points I must say...but I still feel weird putting "very low risk" instead of "least concern". But anyway, as this is an issue in all bird articles, we need to discuss at WT:BIRD so everyone can chip in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)