Talk:Cleaning symbiosis

Plovers

It actually says spur-winged? Elsewhere on Wikipedia it mentions Egyptian plover as the proper bird, such as in that bird's article, also in List of symbiotic relationships and Crocodile bird redirects to it. The article for Spur-winged lapwing says: "The famed "crocodile bird" is sometimes taken to be this species, but it is actually the true plover Pluvianus aegyptius." Do both birds (allegedly) do this? 68.156.95.34 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

1. "It actually says spur-winged?" Yes, it actually does, and I've quoted it in full in the article, complete with exact page reference, so it can hardly be denied - for my claim to be false now, either I'd actually have to be a liar, or seriously confused, or be in possession of a book that looks like Scherren's but has in fact been cunningly tampered with by a demented Wikimaniac intent on disrupting my future edits by guessing what I am about to look for and supplying me with a specially-made book designed to mislead. I hardly think so.
2. "Elsewhere on Wikipedia" - Be aware that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; articles must be sourced to other places which we have reason to believe are reliable: please read the policy in that blue link, because you have no hope of becoming a successful editor without it. The fact that a thousand errors have been made somewhere else is precisely no evidence that anything is wrong with a correctly cited claim, one that in this case is actually proven with a complete and verifiable quotation. (Yes, you need to go and study that blue linked policy too, it is absolutely central to how Wikipedia works.)
3. "Do both birds (allegedly) do this?" Actually, the article carefully discusses which birds might do this, and shows that in all likelihood the behaviour is occasional and incidental. Since Scherren is a reliable source, and since Sclater was an excellent zoologist, I think we can be fairly sure that the plovers that were shot were spur-winged; and since Cook thought the shot birds were the same kind as the bird in the mouth, it seems very likely that the bird in the mouth was spur-winged also, but that is as much as can be said, and the article correctly implies no more than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

*twitch*Thank you for clarifying the quote. I wasn't using the other articles as "evidence" but simply noting that they said something different and therefore wondering if they needed to be changed; do they?. (Also, I think WP:V, like much of this wiki's policies, needs a serious overhaul, but that's neither here nor there) 68.156.95.34 (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, I'll take a look at them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Image of the needlefish

I propose that the image of the needlefish is removed. Because of the background, it is not clear what is going on. Even with the image expanded, it is still not very clear. I don't think the article gains anything with this image, nor would it lose anything if it is deleted. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it not a bad image, but not the sharpest. Here's a different one; it seems well worth showing a marine example as well as a terrestrial one in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow! What a superb image! I take your point about aquatic and terrestrial examples. Do you think that should be pointed out in the captions? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really, it's plain enough, and the article makes clear the diversity of the behaviour. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just made a multi-image for the 2 lead images - what do you think? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I must have joined the ranks of oldcodger.com (that's the more polite of the two epithets) as it looks almost as it did before. If you really feel it's better then hey, as Blairites used to say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not change the captions at all. The multibox allows both images to be given a common title of "Cleaning symbiosis". DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cleaning symbiosis. 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/20070927193437/http://www.ufrgs.br/ni/vol1num2/1(2)scientificnotes_02.pdf to http://www.ufrgs.br/ni/vol1num2/1(2)scientificnotes_02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flickr - Rainbirder - Yellow-billed Oxpecker (Buphagus africanus).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The oxpecker

As the name suggests, oxpecker birds are not a good example, because they are more commonly parasites/micropredators which open wounds in the animals and drink their blood. Accordingly, a different image should be used. Robert (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)