Talk:Great-tailed grackle

message: The opening paragraph states that great-tailed grackles are New World blackbirds (Genus: Euphagus), which they aren't. They're members of the genus Quiscalus. Furthermore, the Euphagus genus doesn't contain any species called "grackles". I think this sentence should be removed. There are many here in Texas who erroneously call these grackles "blackbirds", and this misuse of the term should be a part of this article.
:Members of the family Icteridae are often colloquially referred to as "new-world blackbirds." Lots of icterids that aren't in Euphagus are also referred to as "blackbirds" such as birds in the genre "Agelaius." Jaramillo and Burke's paper appears to refer to all icterids as "new world blackbirds" which appears to be consistent with other sources. It's more of a stretch, but on occasion, I have seen orioles and meadowlarks also referred to as "new world blackbirds," which appears to at least make sense...? 2601:647:4100:10E2:501D:FB6E:6BD:BDAE (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New World Blackbirds? 

message: The so-called 'unorthodox editing trick' was discussed on WikiProject:Birds months ago, and ended up being used with quite a few bird articles, to preserve useful information (the Further Reading sections) in spite of the fact that the contributions often dwarfed the article itself. I fail to see a compelling reason for removing the scrollbar box, and unless someone can come up with one I intend to restore it. - Ken Thomas (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then I bow to your superior information and apologise. But why have I never seen that technique used on any similar article on Wikipedia? Flapdragon (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few of the not-very-interesting bird species articles that have them. What happened was a user (can't remember the guy's name) showed up quite awhile back and started adding these massive Further Reading sections to certain articles. They were obviously somewhat relevant, and obviously had involved a ton of work, so nobody wanted to delete them - but at the same time the articles themselves were pretty much dwarfed by the wall of text. So it was discussed at WP:B and a few of us ended up following this guy around putting scrollbars around his contributions. It's obviously not a perfect solution, but it's better than deleting them, I think. - Ken Thomas (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the scrollbar idea. It looks pretty impressive. eug (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML is unorthodox? 

message: We recently photographed a baby Great-Tailed Grackle. Here he/she is: .
The photograph is low-resolution (because the photographer didn't have a DSLR handy at the time of the sighting--just an iPhone!), but we think it would contribute to the article. 
Sandtouch (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby Grackle 

message: It sure doesn't say much about humans when the best they can come up with about a beautiful bird with a brilliant and varied call is "noisy pest species".  Something a lot more positive and informative would be appreciated
189.188.226.141 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "noisy pest species"?? 

message: The range of the Great-tailed grackle is expanding extremely quickly due to developed areas, and now the range visible in Jaramillo and Burke's 1999 map is somewhat outdated and should be updated if possible. Now, the Great-tailed Grackle is relatively common in the SF Bay Area, which is not shown in the map 04:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Range Map 

message: first ever sighting was a month ago not sure i would include florida in their range 70.127.128.19 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “To florida in the east”