Talk:Morepork

Audio
Why Real Audio? Because that's what I had lying around. I picked the word "morepork" for a Fictionary game over two years ago and came across the recording while searching the web about moreporks. -phma 15:40, 23 July 2002‎


 * The Morepork.ra audio clip of birdsong that has been pulled from here and uploaded to wikipedia, is its copyright in order? ‎203.109.254.50 19:26, 21 May 2003


 * Good question. You'd think Pierre (who uploaded it) would know what he was doing - he's been here long enough - but in any case, I'd have to have some doubts about anything in that horrible PoxAudio format. Tannin 19:34, 21 May 2003

Name
Why morepork????? --Yak 20:44, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is the page title Southern boobook if the article acknowledges that morepork is more common as a name? Seems inconsistent, like the redirect should be the other way around! Benjamin Dickson (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Author Tannin states Boobook is the "correct common name". Please show justification, or reference. Seams like this article is being governed by little more than Australian opinion. --Glen Webber (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2009‎


 * The article's first sentence says "also called the mopoke or morepork". So, you'd rather "Morepoke. . . also called the mopoke or boobook". Please do us a favour/favor, eh, Kiwi! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What's in a name
The species Ninox novaeseelandiae has been split. The bird project's de facto nomenclator says Morepork refers to Ninox novaeseelandiae (or N. n. novaeseelandiae, take yer pick) and that Southern Boobook is the species Ninox boobook. The latter is a redirect to this article. They don't seem to give guidance to what the subspecies might also be called, Avibase (RS?) says the nominal subspecies has the same name and others are prefixed with a regional desciptor, eg. Lord Howe Island Morepork for Ninox novaeseelandiae albaria. This title refers to Ninox boobook, as does some of the unreferenced content, I'm planning fix that. Does anyone have anything to add before I do? cygnis insignis 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there to be a Ninox boobook article, or are we expanding this with content covering all the sub-species? (Or perhaps if this is already Southern Boobook/Ninox boobook we need a Morepork/Ninox novaeseelandiae article?) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I have been able to glean online, splitting them together was accepted, briefly rejected, then accepted again by the IOC and others. My solution would be to change the scope of this article to N. boobook, create another article at the redirect "morepork" (N. novaeseelandiae), then make a note about the previous and current arrangements for the systematic and common names at both. I think that it worth giving a disambiguating explanation to the reader (from RS, of course), rather than pretend it never happened. One concern might be the edit history, but the content is uncited and does not appear in the single reference (IUCN) or the extlinks. I could move some of the content, retrofitting a ref to support it, but I know this takes longer than starting from scratch. The advantages would include being able to cite facts that refer to specific taxa, such as the extinct subspecies, without having to keep specifying which one it is. If a source says that boobooks used to gang-up and prey on Moa, thereby causing their extinction, we can be reasonably certain they are talking about the population found in New Zealand. cygnis insignis 21:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except you cannot say that the Boobook Owl ever attacked the Moa. The Morepork on the other hand you might, though I doubt it actually would have. It's a case of relative terminology, assuming for the moment you accept the generalisation of the species which is categorically wrong. Generalise the genus if you like but not the species. Common names can relate to mulitple species and genuses and vary from place to place but only one genus ever applies. A linguistic parallel would be entering content in en.wikipedia in German or Danish because after all they are all Germanic/Indo-European. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious name dispute
Where on earth does the Southern booboo name come from? I'm familiar with Morepork and thought that the standard name. Ought I find a source to back this up e.g. DoC? Okay I wasn't looking precisely but http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ or specifically row 3053 in http://www.worldbirdnames.org/IOC%20Names%20File-2.3.xls show Morepork (Ninox novaeseelandiae) is the correct name not 'Southern BooBoo' (Ninox boobook) row 3052. This needs major revamping! 203.25.1.208 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let this sit a week or two and then make some changes if nobody says anything noteworthy because frankly this error irks me. I've got a Field Guide at home that devotes a page to the Morepork so I can grab some facts out of that.203.25.1.208 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I've always known it as the "Morepork", and never known anyone or seen anything else referring to it as a "Boobook". It says in the article that they're mainly found in New Zealand, yet the article refers to them by the Australian common name? ALSO this discussion page says this article is within the scope of WikiProject Australia -- but not WikiProject NZ? Bloody Aussies :) Edaemus (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This needs fixing. --Helenalex (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just looked into this. Right now the title says Southern Boobook and the first paragraph mentions only Morepork for Ninox novaeseelandiae. I think what happened was the species Nonox boobook was taxonomically merged with Ninox novaeseelandiae for a while (or is/was merged by some sources), using N. boobook’s common name (Southern Boobook) for both of them, then they were taxonomically split again, so N. novaeseelandiae should be called Morepork and N. boobook should be called Southern Boobook. This is based primarily on the first two cites below (IUCN & IOC World Bird List). I'm just posting cites for now, will try to edit things to reflect IOC World Bird List soonish, unless someone works on it first (feel free!).


 * Lists 2 common names for Ninox novaeseelandiae, including Morpork and Southern Boobook. (When it lists one, it uses Southern Boobook).
 * Explains species merger: "Ninox novaeseelandiae and N. boobook (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) have been lumped into N. novaeseelandiae following Christidis and Boles (1994)."
 * Explains species merger: "Ninox novaeseelandiae and N. boobook (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) have been lumped into N. novaeseelandiae following Christidis and Boles (1994)."


 * Lists 1 common name for Ninox novaeseelandiae: Morepork. Found in Tasmania, and New Zealand. Lists 4 subspecies.
 * Explains species separation: "Revert to Version 1.5, retaining Morepork for English name of Ninox novaeseelandiae"
 * Lists 1 common name for Ninox boobook: Southern Boobook. Found in Lesser Sundas, southern New Guinea, and Australia. Lists 10 subspecies.
 * Explains species separation: "Contrary to Version 1.6, Ninox boobook is not conspecific with N. novaeseelandiae as suggested by Christidis and Boles (2008)(R.Schodde in litt.)"
 * Explains species separation: "Contrary to Version 1.6, Ninox boobook is not conspecific with N. novaeseelandiae as suggested by Christidis and Boles (2008)(R.Schodde in litt.)"


 * Lists 15 common English names for Ninox novaeseelandiae, including Southern Boobook (preferred) and Morepork. Its cited references for Southern Boobook include Avibase - IOC World Bird Names (2011), IUCN Red List, PlanetScott.com images, and uBio. I checked Avibase, and it contradicted this, but EOL didn't list a specific page on Avibase.
 * Lists 15 common English names for Ninox novaeseelandiae, including Southern Boobook (preferred) and Morepork. Its cited references for Southern Boobook include Avibase - IOC World Bird Names (2011), IUCN Red List, PlanetScott.com images, and uBio. I checked Avibase, and it contradicted this, but EOL didn't list a specific page on Avibase.


 * Lists 5 common English names for Ninox boobook, including Southern Boobook (preferred), but not Morepork.
 * Lists 5 common English names for Ninox boobook, including Southern Boobook (preferred), but not Morepork.


 * Lists 1 common name: Morepork. Lists 4 unnamed subspecies: N. n. albaria, N. n. leucopsis, N. n. novaeseelandiae, N. n. undulata.
 * Lists 1 common name: Morepork. Lists 4 unnamed subspecies: N. n. albaria, N. n. leucopsis, N. n. novaeseelandiae, N. n. undulata.


 * Lists 1 common name: Southern boobook. Lists 11 unnamed subspecies.
 * Lists 1 common name: Southern boobook. Lists 11 unnamed subspecies.


 * Lists 1 common name for Ninox boobook: Southern Boobook (it cites ITIS).
 * Lists 1 common name for Ninox boobook: Southern Boobook (it cites ITIS).


 * Lists 1 common name for Ninox novaeseelandiae: Morepork (it cites ITIS).
 * Lists 1 common name for Ninox novaeseelandiae: Morepork (it cites ITIS).


 * Lists 1 English names for Ninox novaeseelandiae: Morepork. Includes names used by other specific sources, most of which use "Morepork", except "Southern Boobook" used by eBird versions 1.52-1.54. Not clear that this is a reliable source.
 * Lists 1 English names for Ninox novaeseelandiae: Morepork. Includes names used by other specific sources, most of which use "Morepork", except "Southern Boobook" used by eBird versions 1.52-1.54. Not clear that this is a reliable source.


 * Lists 1 English names for Ninox boobook: Southern Boobook. Not clear that this is a reliable source.
 * Lists 1 English names for Ninox boobook: Southern Boobook. Not clear that this is a reliable source.

Agyle (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd discount IUCN - it's old, and is not staffed by the bird specialists that make up the IOC. Working on the rest....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If we split, it will be Ninox novaeseelandiae = Morepork, and Ninox boobook = Southern Boobook I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok - there is a paper I recall and there were concerns raised about the testing/review of Tasmanian birds as belonging to NZ rather than mainland Oz. See what I can find. The IOC mentions Richard Schodde has something but is ...in press?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The "in litt.", in IOC's "Christidis and Boles (2008)(R.Schodde in litt.)", stands for "in literris", which means in correspondence. Christidis & Boles 2008 mention Schodde's 1997 treatment as separate species, and summarize a lot of other 20th century research, if you're trying to locate an older study. Agyle (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Aha - see here - this is visible to me here in Oz. Hope you can see it.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep! I had to shorten the URL to make it work (this link for other readers). Very nice summary; less detailed but much clearer than C&B 2008's. It doesn't settle which approach we should take for splitting the articles, but whichever is chosen, Olson 2011 would be a great reference for coverage of the taxonomic dispute. Agyle (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right - let's sort this out - this looks interesting...seeing if I can fetch the fulltext....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay - that paper is a discussion point noting that there are small birds on the mainland that look like the Tasmanian taxon and that they should be investgated as to their genetic makeup. Also notes the uncertainty about whether Tasmanian birds migrate to the mainland or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting tidbit, but doesn't seem to shed any more light on the species issue. It seems like we have all the basic facts here; do you have a preference on splitting the article into two, with each about a different species, or keeping it as one? Either way, the articles can cover the classification issue explaining both sides of the subspecies vs. species issue, so it's not like the facts change. I'm in favor of following IOU & ITIS with separate Morepork and Southern Boobook articles, but am fine keeping them as one if you think that's more appropriate. Agyle (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved: majority; no consensus in 41 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Southern Boobook → Morepork (or whatever the lead prefers) – To agree with article text, which no longer even mentions "Southern Boobook" at all, where ever that came from. This RM is independent of the scientific naming taxonomic dispute, which could play out in the academic literature for years. The title here has to agree with the text. If there's a consensus to change the lead to focus on some name other than morepork (or Morepork the way a lot of birders like to capitalize), then change the title to match whatever that is. --Relisted. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative support, though in all likelihood we'll be splitting the page up. This increases the urgency to read a paper on it...hmmmmmm. Looking at the mateiral on this page, it is just about all New Zealand-related, hence makes sense to move this page and then make a new page at Southern Boobook to conserve the contribution history. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm not opposed to moving the article per se, just opposed to moving it for the arbitrary rationale of making the title match the opening sentence. The opening sentence should agree with the article title, and only disagrees because someone changed it without an informed reason or citing a source.


 * There is a separate discussion of whether to split this article into two or more articles. With only two participants so far, hopefully it will be decided soon, but if the decision would conflict with this proposal we can wait until April 17 or later when this is closed before implementing it. Agyle (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to withdraw the RM if there's another immediate solution to the problem that any reader other than a southern-hemisphere ornithologist keeping close tabs on nomenclature disputes is going to be sorely confused upon arriving at this page, because the title phrase isn't even mentioned in the article. It's like going to Batman, finding an article all about a guy named Bruce Wayne, and the article never mentioning Batman at all. This isn't about what nomenclature that editors at WP:BIRDS may want to settle upon using here for ornithological reasons, it's about keeping readers' interests in mind first, always.  Moving a page to a name that's actually addressed by the article's content is emphatically not an "arbitrary rationale". If adding "Southern Boobook" back into the lead is factually wrong because the article's got to split, then pick some OTHER name. How many common names does the NZ species actually have, after all?  It should be fixed sooner, not later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The solution will be this - I am going to look at the articles covering the genetics which led some authorities to split the taxa and add to this article very soon. At which point I will get a handle on hte split and we will talk of splitting. Give it 72 hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: @Cas Liber: any update on whether you want to proceed with a proposal to split?


 * Damn - been busy - will get to this soon. I do think a split is likely and will advise once I read the paper. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)



Right - trying to track fulltext of this, which will enlighten. Am thinking there is more of a consensus for split than not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as per reliable sources (apparently). If you need another rationale, hey, it's more WP:CONCISE... Red Slash 01:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And the page needs to move to southern boobook anyway, even if it doesn't move to morepork. SMcCandlish, should "Southern" be capitalized in running text? Is that a proper adjective/noun a la New Zealand fairy tern? Red Slash 01:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Re: "Southern", I doubt it, since it appears to refer to the southerly range of the genus in New Zealand, not to a place in NZ called the South. But if there is in NZ, as in the US, a region called and capitalized as "the South" as a proper name, and the bird were named after it, then yes. I think an NZer would know better in this case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved split proposal
See above. Ninox boobook still redirects here, but seemingly should be a separate article, per most (but not all) of the above sources. Summary as given previously, above: morepork now refers to Ninox novaeseelandiae (or N. n. novaeseelandiae) and southern boobook is the now the species Ninox boobook. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Right - Southern boobook now created...but I'm going to bed. Will do more tomorrow but sleep beckons. Has a nice pic..go for thy lives.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)