Talk:List of birds of the Marshall Islands

Birds Low‑importance

List of birds of the Marshall Islands 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

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.

Micronesia: Marshall Islands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Marshall Islands (assessed as Low-importance).

Rewrite

This article needs complete revision. The article should be an easy-to-read inventory of birds, maybe outlined or ordered by taxonomy. Instead, it is a kitchen-sink smorgasbord of latin words, having little to do with what birds are actually there. If linked, the latin words are explained in the birds article. Duplicating them here is not only redundant, it forces editors to change a number of places when a category changes (scientists change their minds, birds disappear, etc.). Limit information here to what is required. See WP:TOPIC. This article is not supposed to record the actions of the birds, unless unique to the Marshall Islands. That, too, is performed in each article. Student7 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written using the same format as nearly all other lists of birds, national and sub-national. The format can therefore be considered standard. Providing both common and scientific names is nearly universal in lists of birds and is common in lists of mammals. I and several other editors do annual updates of bird list taxonomy, which I think addresses that concern. Craigthebirder (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the bird and mammal projects have dispensed with WP:TOPIC which was generated to avoid having to change multiple articles when one fact, joint to all articles was reported or changed. I'm not following the reasoning here. If I've reported your methodology accurately, why was this done? Student7 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to how this applies to WP:TOPIC, but I think the basic idea is pretty straight forward. Using the first subject heading and its content from the article,

Albatrosses

Order: Procellariiformes Family: Diomedeidae
The albatrosses are among the largest of flying birds, and the great albatrosses from the genus Diomedea have the largest wingspans of any extant birds.

Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis

Black-footed albatross, Phoebastria nigripes

There are albatrosses in the Marshall Islands. Here's a little background on what albatrosses are and how they fit in among birds. There are two kinds of albatross in the Marshall Islands. Their common and scientific names are listed. Its useful to list both because the common name is more recognizable and the scientific name is more certain.

Does that make sense? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I wrote above was unnecessarily dismissive. I apologize. I find that these lists make sense. There are hundreds of them which follow essentially the same format; if we need to change one, we need to change them all. I'm open to new ideas though. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like organization better than no organization. I wrote one with no organization and it is impossible to read!

But I find this "too organized = too long." I would put "(asterisk) Storm Petrels include: Wilson's storm petrel, Polynesian storm petrel, Band-rumped storm petrel, and Leach's storm petrel." linking where possible. In other words, two lines or so instead of twelve or so. 3 pages instead of 15. Yes, I realize that "other articles" may do this. The problem is that it's not that readable.

I appreciate what you are saying about Latin: more accurate. But it is tedious here IMO. I agree that it must be somewhere, I would presume the bird article.

The subsection introductory narrative is readable, but shouldn't be, since it should be under the "storm petrel" article, if there is one. WP:TOPIC. The reader should know what the storm petrel is before reading the rest of the line. S/he can do this by linking to that article early in the sentence.

Also, the article title seems wrong. I would rename it "Birds of the Marshall Islands." This is to avoid WP:NOTLIST, which sounds almanac-y, as well as WP:KISS.

All of this to try to produce an article which sounds like it's been written by the same person throughout Wikipedia, which all encyclopedias try to do. Encyclopedia Britannica achieves this by not re-hiring experts that don't follow their guidelines. Since we are volunteers, we have to try to achieve this goal the hard way! Student7 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]