Talk:Dusky moorhen

message: I just want you to know that the pictures are good, but there is almost no content.Birdsaregood (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: what they eat 39.38.69.244 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Enough Content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dusky moorhen. 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/20140912130920/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/edb83075-6f56-4db6-8004-daeca79c5cfd to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/edb83075-6f56-4db6-8004-daeca79c5cfd
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) 01:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The range for this bird is incorrect. This bird is DEFINITELY not found in India - which is where I live and bird.
From AviBase : (https://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=0BA183A7E9B3EC2E)
    Geographic range:
        Gallinula tenebrosa tenebrosa: Locally in sw and e Australia and Tasmania
        Gallinula tenebrosa frontata: SE Borneo to Sulawesi, s Moluccas, L Sundas, se New Guinea
        Gallinula tenebrosa neumanni: N New Guinea
I suspect the article has been written this way since some authorities lump / lumped this bird with the Common Moorhen - as evident from this para from HBW (can't link to it since it's a paid service)
    Taxonomy:
        Gallinula tenebrosa
        Gould, 1846,
    New South Wales and South Australia.
    Sometimes treated as conspecific with G. chloropus, but sympatric in Wallacea. Three subspecies recognized.
    Subspecies and Distribution
        G. t. frontata Wallace, 1863 – Sulawesi through Sula Is (Taliabu), S Moluccas and Lesser Sundas to W & SE New Guinea.
        G. t. neumanni E. J. O. Hartert, 1930 – N New Guinea.
        G. t. tenebrosa Gould, 1846 – Australia and Tasmania.
    Local in New Britain and New Caledonia (probably a recent colonist on both islands), subspecies unknown.
Just want to know if the original author thinks something different...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vndas (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range info is incorrect? 

message: “The Australian subspecies is larger and pager than...”   Pager?   Boscaswell talk 22:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pager?  Eh? 

message: So, I've found sources saying they'll eat bread, that they'll forage from rubbish tips, and that they can be found in urban parks and stuff. So from that I think it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that they will eat scraps, and that people will feed them. I mean, what urban bird species isn't going to do that? I've seen this happening myself in the Royal Botanics (why can't people read the signs?!), but I know that's not an acceptable reason not to cite something.
But I can't find any sources for that information. Do I need to cite it then, when it seems obvious enough?
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermelon-lemon (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to follow your thread - you say you have found a source or have not found a source (saying they eat scraps etc.)? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

text: A policy that takes some gettting used to when adding content is Wikipedia:No original research. You can write what you find in references but you can't make stuff up. So just add what you can find (without adding material that is not able to be cited). Maybe one say we will find it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it okay to say how they get food from humans etc. without a source?