Category talk:Anseriformes

Anseriformes is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

This category seems in need of a cleanup. We have two parallel classification systems in play, and we have some spurious entries. Any views? SP-KP 18:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I (I've done pretty much all the work in category:Birds by classification) tried to have the category structure mimic the current taxonomy theory, even if it sometimes involved allowing for several competing opinions. Mind being more explicit about the issues you see? Last time I touched this aprticular part of the tree was back in August... Circeus 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this category organised as you suggest - i.e. order, family, genus (and possibly with intermediate groupings e.g. subfamilies, tribes too) ... we have subcategories of Anseriformes for "ducks", "geese" and "swans", the first of which is probably a paraphyletic, artificial group based solely on names, the second OK if we restrict it to true geese and place it in the correct part of the tree, and the third OK if we restrict it to the genus Cygnus and also place this in the correct part of the tree. Sorting that out would go a long way to resolving the problem. SP-KP 19:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason not to keep cats by name (certainly helps people who are not aware of a sorting by taxonomy). However, it would make more sense to move them in the category three, either up in category:Birds or down into category:Anatidae. Circeus 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how far we ought to go with that though? Would we for instance create a category for grosbeaks, given that they are found in about four different families. What would its parent category be? If we do keep the three "popular" anseriform subcategories, I think moving them down the tree is better than moving them up it. SP-KP 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would we for instance create a category for grosbeaks, given that they are found in about four different families. *I* wouldn't, but it would not be completely illogical. And the cat would go in category:passeriformes. It's a category I did relatively little work in, and so couldn't really be familiar with the ideal categorization. User:JohnCastle sorted most of it. Circeus 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]