Talk:Rodrigues starling

message: See Sturnia. For a reconstruction, it is presently most warranted to merge the body form of Fregilupus, Sturnia sinensis, Sturnia malabarica and perhaps Leucopsar (too highly arboreal?). The skull/beak must be taken as template (do not forget horny sheath) and the limb proportions too. Then adapt the generalized "Sturnia" (of the old definition) color pattern to the description of Tafforet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this sketch based on your description and the skull image in the article. How do you think I could improve it? I did not add a crest, since Julian Hume has left one out of his restoration. The colouration was based on this: FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstruction, relationships of ''Fregilupus'' etc

message: It's in the public domain, and pretty much all we know about the bird is from this, so why not quote it on the page in full? I'll add Alfred Newton's translation, I can't see any reason to object to it, but please do, if it's an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would link to Alfred Newton's original work instead to the citation in Cheke & Hume --Melly42 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The book doesn't give a citation beyond that it was by Newton, so I don't know where it was published... Perhaps he never actually published it? FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Newton cited Tafforet's original description in his article Additional evidence as to the Original fauna of Rodrigues Published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (1875) p 41:  --Melly42 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, it doesn't seem to contain the translation, but there is a mention of a future publication by Milne-Edwards, but Newton of course couldn't cite it proactively, heheh... FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I believe it is found in "Alfred Newton 1875 Additional Evidence as to the Original Fauna of Rodriguez". FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tafforet's full description 

message: Seems like this could be a good article, with some modifications? It seems very long for such a badly known bird, might there be synthesis in the text, of sources that do not particularly mention this species? FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be good to rewrite the outdated section --Melly42 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? It seems to make clear that it is now seen as a starling, and then give an overview of the older classification history. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if the outdated template should stay in the article --Melly42 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rodrigues starling. 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/20150209164455/http://www.biodiversityheritagelibrary.org/item/99626 to http://www.biodiversityheritagelibrary.org/item/99626
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) 05:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , is the description on this image wrong? I do not understand the difference between holotype and syntype. But it would be nice if we had consistency between the file description and the caption on the Main Page: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 3, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for pointing that out, I have now clarified it in my latest edit. I think the inconsistency arose because I was actually expanding this article before a lectotype was designated among the syntype bones in a 2014 article. Feel free to suggest if it still needs clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Necropsar rodericanus.jpg]] 

message: Congrats everyone on getting this article to Featured Article level, I very much enjoyed reading it. Thinking of this from a casual reader's perspective, I wonder if the current image (used in the taxobox and by extension as a header in mobile apps) is the most appropriate and if the restoration image (:File:Rodrigues Starling.jpg) wouldn't be more appropriate as an illustration.--DarTar (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps for TFA, but I think it's a bit too late in the game to change it now, isn't the next TFA due in like ten minutes? But as for the main taxobox image, we should use the least speculative image we've got, which is the fossils themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not questioning this, but can you explain the rationale of we should use the least speculative image we've got? Is there any applicable guideline/policy? Given that the taxobox image is effectively used as a snippet on all link hovers and app cards and headers i.e. as the first thing casual readers will see when they are interested in reading more about the topic, prior to visiting the article, I feel this should be the best high-level illustration of the topic, not necessarily the most reliable scientific image related to the topic from the literature. In those contexts, in particular, the image is used without caption, which makes it harder to understand without context. I don't have access to Hume (2014) but if your adaption is close enough to the original I feel it would do a great job as a main image. My 2 cents. --DarTar (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that's a matter of philosophy. On Wikipedia, verifiability trumps everything else, and the specimens themselves are the facts when it comes to dealing with extinct animals that have left no complete remains. We did work out a guideline at the paleontology project that states skeletons should taker precedence over restorations in taxoboxes, for that reason. You can compare the image with Hume's illustrations of the bird here: But since they are speculative, and even contradict each other in some ways (the second shows yellow on the rump and around the eye not mentioned in the old account), I wouldn't even use those as the main image. They are best guesses, yes, but they would also mislead the reader into thinking we know more than we do. Which is also why, even though I drew the image used in the article, and therefore am convinced it follows all the available sources, I'd prefer to show the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see that, thanks for the additional context.--DarTar (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image