Talk:Moluccan boobook

Birds Low‑importance

Moluccan boobook 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Removing taxobox etc.

Should this article not be a set index? Notifying all members of WikiProject Birds (more info · opt out): Shyamal (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article shouldn't have a taxobox. I had never heard of a "Set index article" but it seems overkill to expand this article on why these species were once considered conspecific. I think a simple disambiguation page would probably be sufficient. The articles on the individual species obviously need to mention the history and why the Moluccan boobook was split. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to redirect it to the Seram boobook and put the information about the species split there. The current article is effectively unreferenced (the old IUCN reference predates the split and the link is dead). Are they now collectively referred to as the Moluccan hawk-owl group? — Jts1882 | talk 10:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either of the above solutions would be OK with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support either solution. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect. We should have an article (this one) to disambiguate. To begin with, "Moluccan boobook" is found in sources, as evident in a simple google books search. Besides that, island owl (and wider bird) species are notoriously prone to change in terms of species classification, as they are often related in a Species complex or superspecies than is sub-genus but a bit above species. The exact split (or merge) is prone to change in the future.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 20:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term could certainly be mentioned as a single line in each of the articles for the split species. Would that not be enough? Shyamal (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most certainly not, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. "Moluccan boobook" is valid search item for a reader, it is used in literature. The results of such a search should be at the very least a DAB page, leading to the four different targets we have now. There may be scope here for content on the superspecies beyond just the DAB (as defining species in island owls is complex, prone to change, and even differs between authorities), but it certainly should be a DAB at the very least.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect. I think the redirect would be appropriate if the article was at the scientific name or if new species were being split from a bird still using the same common name but more narrowly (e.g. an island form from a continental form). However, here its more that the Moluccan boobook is being split into four geographically separated species and none can be considered the primary target for the redirect. So despite suggesting the redirect possibility I don't think it appropriate here. One question I have is how would a set index list differ from the current page, which is essentially a lede followed by a list. — Jts1882 | talk 11:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not significantly different - except for the taxobox removal. Shyamal (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be retained as more than a disambiguation page (set list or otherwise) then I think it should have an appropriate taxobox. It does seem to be recognised as a species complex (see Gwee et al, 2018), so I have made some changes to reflect this and added some references. — Jts1882 | talk 10:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting approach - and would we use a similar approach with genera that have been subsumed, as in Ergaticus...? They are sister species forming a clade within the larger genus - per doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.07.018 Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]