Talk:Corvus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Corvus (genus))

Jackdaws[edit]

Jackdaws are NOT Corvus.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sloth Mode. Peer reviewers: Strike2426, PricklyFish.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Closed discussion with the result of no consensus. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose that the the pages Crow and Raven be merged into this page, since the terms both indicate the same taxonomic grouping (the genus Corvus), and neither is inclusive of the other. However, there is significant justification that Crow and Raven could be made into sub-sets of this page, but information that applies to both should remain here to eliminate the redundancy that has caused so much debate on the respective pages.Plcoffey (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation Copied from Raven article about possible merger with Crow

Raven or crow[edit]

(Proposed-merge tag added to article by User:Zvika, 13:49, 6 December 2007. I've moved an earlier comment on the same subject from original place under "Raven vs Crow" to become first comment below. Also see various comments above under both #Common Raven? and #Common Raven, which so far look pretty much like a consensus for staying as-is. --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Someone who's an expert on this should consider combining the Raven article with the Crow article, which both look to be quite similar and have a lot of overlap. Or that someone should explain what the difference is and why the pages are separate. (Unsigned comment by User:62.135.80.91,10:41, 21 February 2007)

My view is that Raven and Crow definitely deserve separate articles. Although somewhat similar birds, they do form two obvious groups within Corvus, and a combined article would have to spend a confusing amount of space dealing with each separately. I'm not so sure (as I raised above) that this applies for Australian "ravens", which seem to me to be more crows than ravens proper. However, I still don't think these belong in Crow, because it would be even more confusing to have "ravens" split into two articles. So keep the two articles separate, but have a separate section in Raven for the Aussie ones. --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Raven and Crow deserve separate articles, and that it is very likely that Australian birds are likely evolutionarily separate from other species. Has there been any taxonomic work done on further dividing the genus?Plcoffey (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation Copied from Crow article about possible merger with Raven

Raven vs. Crow[edit]

Someone who's an expert on this should consider combining the Raven article with the Crow article, which both look to be quite similar and have a lot of overlap. Or that someone should explain what the difference is and why the pages are separate.

The explanation of that is in the article. Quote: "Raven is the common name given to several large black birds of the genus Corvus. Other birds in the same genus are the smaller crows, jackdaws, and rooks." Or: Raven = large Corvus, Crow = small corvus 88.73.5.50 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I was just comparing the two pages. It appears both the raven and crow are members of the same genus, but where they separate from there depends on individual specie physical characteristics. Primarily, ravens are larger than crows. There are some behavioral differences between the two, but that does not affect their taxinomical classification. Katzen 23:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a birder, I can explain a bit. The terms "raven" and "crow" are layman's terms for different sizes of related birds. Yes, ravens and crows are members of the same genus but they are not the same species. There are many species of ravens and many species of crows. Perhaps the basic "These are the species" pages for both ravens and crows could go on the "Corvus" page (which shouldn't re-direct to "Crow" anyhow because it includes Ravens! It should stay as "Corvus" with "Crow" re-directing to it!). So, yes, the Raven article could be mostly moved to a page on the Corvus genus. A more useful re-direct from "Raven" would be to "Common Raven" (the most, well, common raven species and what is usually meant by saying "raven" off-hand); with, of course, a nice link to the Corvus article for other raven species. Nixve (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nixve, Corvus shouldn't redirect to Crow, the Crow and Raven article should be combined into a Corvus page, and redirect to it with species pages branching off of it. Plcoffey (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another voice here to say that the two birds are different. In the past five minutes, I've come across two that stated such: Birds of Nova Scotia: Common Raven, (removed second reference as Suite101 is "blacklisted" by WikiPedia). Came to Wikipedia for more info only to find a bit of confusion here! While I am here: it would be interesting to confirm how easy it is to buy one of these in Canada (apparently, it's illegal to purchase one in America). Thanks! Maltiti2005 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crow accounts for the entire family whereas Raven is a particular species. I don't see why you would put the two into one article, none of the other animal articles are organized in this fashion. See http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-raven-and-a-crow.htm for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.158.180 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The family is corvidae it includes crows, ravens and jays. The genus is corvus that's what we're discussing here. A quick reference to a published encyclopedia (I know I can't cite it) makes a distinction between crows and ravens as sub-groups of the genus. user:Nixve and user:plcoffey seem to me to have a concensus here. Which one of you would like to do the rewrites?Mstuczynski (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no, do not merge Raven into Crow. I like the suggestions put forward by Nixve and Plcoffey. I am a birder and use Wikipedia (among other resources) to look up accounts of birds. Ravens and crows are distinctly different groups with species under each. A crow is not a raven, a raven is not a crow. If the quote sited above "Raven is the common name given to several large black birds of the genus Corvus. Other birds in the same genus are the smaller crows, jackdaws, and rooks." is confusing to those unfamiliar with these birds, perhaps it can be clarified. I am too close to this so I don't see the reason for confusion and have no suggested clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kperegrine (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest merging Raven and Raven (disambiguation) instead, since the current Raven page is just a group of links, better handled by a disambiguation page. Narayanese (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven/Crow again[edit]

These two articles are very similar, and I'm seeing parts of the Crow article that could very well be part of the Raven article, such as that on Hugin and Munin. I propose redefining "crows" in this article to be small corvids, since the "ravens" are defined to be large corvids. What does everyone else think? Depending on whether or not there are negative responses, I will start work on splitting the two articles soon if there are no objections. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better still both should be small sub-articles of the major article Corvidae. Guy (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merger[edit]

They shouldn't be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.165.195 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven is not a Crow[edit]

A Raven is not a crow so why shou you merge the two articles. They are different birds and the only reason that people get them confused is because they look similar! I think that you should not merge the two pages. 71.121.206.145 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Mouse[reply]

Indeed, they are different animals so merging the articles don't make sense.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, some ravens are large and some crows are small. The validity of the epithets is questionable. 3 well known speices in Australia are all more closely related to the 2 species called Crows in Australia..I'd make them small but keep them as good placeds to fork off to cultural sections as well as individual species called Crows and Ravens, with the genus corvus about the whole lot. I suppose that makes me a weak oppose but would help out if we merged. No biggie reallycheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "Lories and lorikeets" page works because there is no common one name for loriinae. I think that corvus may not a good name for a merged page, because it is not a common word. I have not made up my mind on this merge. On a crows and ravens page, where would jackdaws and magpies go? Snowman (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Indeed, they are different animals" - if you take into account ALL ravens and ALL crows, you'll see that they are not. Consider Dwarf Raven, White-necked Raven, Torresian Crow, Piping Crow.
And still: every single place on Earth probably has their specific "ravens" and "crows" and at least rural dwellers probably will be able to tell these apart. But considered globally it is impossible to draw a dividing line. So I agree with Casliber - biologically they are one and the same; crows and ravens vary more among themselves than they differ among each other. Culturally they are 2 kinds. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven is not a Crow like a Leopard is not a Cheetah[edit]

I totally agree that the two articles should not be merged. To say that a Raven is a Crow is like saying that a wolf and a Silver Fox are the same. On thing that could be done though, is that the two articles could be divided up more. The sections in the crow article which talk about Ravens, for example in mythology, could be transfered to the Raven article and the Crow article could focus more on this one genus. Because Crows and Ravens have such a long history in mythology and European folklore perhaps a seperate Wikipedia section should be made called "Corvus" under which the discussion of the genus and the ways the two species differ not, and, maintain the two articles on "Crows" and "Ravens" but use them to discuss the cultural, historical and mythological symbolism of the two animals. If a link to "Corvus" is supplied in each entry then the information should be more fucused and complete. PhilipGHunt (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely false analogy. Cheetahs and leopards represent a single species each and belong not only in different genera but entirely different subfamilies. The term "crow" if we exclude "raven" species becomes an unnatural polyphyletic group and therefore the terminology of what constitutes a "crow" and what a "raven" depends only on man-made conventions.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments post February 15, 2008

Start of comments after February 15, 2008[edit]

Easier to organize the discussion with a new heading.

  • Corvus is simply a redirect to Crow. Someone would have to start the page and write sections on jackdaws, rooks, and Ravens
  • Crow itself would require major rewrites and reorganisation in order to fit within the framework of a new article.
  • Renaming Crow to Corvus would provide a ready made framework for the integration of the above mentioned groups, but would require the creation of a new Crow page dedicated solely to Crows.
  • Raven as it stands is little more than a disambiguation page, and unless and until expansion would probably be better off as a redirect to a section of some kind of Crow/Corvus page.
  • Jackdaw and Rook seem reasonably well developed and would require section headings with links to "Main Article"

I think it is pretty obvious that quite a few people have a problem with the way the Crow/Raven/Corvus thing is done right now. The problem is, concensus or no concensus, a simple merge or rename is not going to solve the problem. My suggestion is to find a willing someone to start sandbox articles (in a user sub-page for instance), fix these issues, and then find a concensus for moving them into main space. Oh, if anyone is willing, you might want to find an ornithologist to consult with. This seems a little to complex for someone without a professional backgound. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mstuczynski said it way better than I did, and all of those points have my complete support. Corvids are a hobby of mine, and I will be more that willing to help edit the article, and am willing to host a sandbox version on my user page. However, I wouldn't call myself an ornithologist, and agree that this project needs the attention of someone with a more applicable background. Should I create a Corvus sub-page on my user page? Plcoffey (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well, it would be quite a bit of work. You might want to create two pages: one for Corvus, and one for Crow. You could copy the existing Crow to both for a start. On the Corvus page you would have to expand for the rest of the genus while eliminating redundancies. On the Crow page you would have to edit down to the "Crow" essentials. If you are serious, you might be able to find some help at WikiProject Birds. I would also leave links to these user sub-pages on your main page, this discussion page, and possibly the existing Crow and Raven discussion pages (with a short explanation of what you are doing obviously). This would make it easier for a visitor to assist you. You might have some difficulty finding concensus for a move to main space, but again WikiProject Birds may be able to assist you in that regard. Let me know if you attempt this. I will try to help if I can. Mstuczynski (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a subpage at User:Plcoffey/SandboxCorvus (genus) for the purposes of creating an article to be placed here eventually. Any help is appreciated. Plcoffey (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect existing common name titles to scientific names. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles. "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles .... Scientific names should be used otherwise." It would seem from the discussion above that common names are not reasonably unique, hence scientific names should be used. The common names should be redirected to the most likely scientific name and the usual WP:DAB guidance followed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About your first line in the proposed article, Corvids are large passerine birds that comprise the genus Corvus in the family Corvidae. - corvids are in fact any member of the family Corvidae, not just those in the genus Corvus. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a very good point, please feel free to edit Plcoffey (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general, having a comment like is currently on this article (pointing a user to userspace) as WAAAY frowned upon. I recommend either reverting this so it goes back to being a redirect OR copying the version in your userspace into this article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the input, the current page is unfinished, but I'll go ahead and put it here...maybe it will encourage others to work on it.Update I have transferred what I have so far, but it needs major work. I've also included the wikiproject birds template. Plcoffey (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy with lumping all types of Corvus species into one article. Notwithstanding the contrary claim in the current article, there do seem to be several good taxa within Corvus – I'm no expert, but the following seem obvious: jackdaws, crows, ravens, Australasian ravens & crows, Rook. It seems clear to me that each of these needs to be dealt with, at least by substantial sections in Corvus, but preferably by their own articles, with short sections here with Main Article tags.

At present the list of species in Corvus is done by geographic area. While it's useful to have a clear idea of which species lives where, I think we need more of a taxonomic treatment here too (the idea that all species in all regions are most related to each other is surely false). Which species is related to which? Which is descended from which? (Has no-one done any genetic studies...?) I suggest we have the list arranged taxonomically as best we can, with notes on where (or when) each is found.

I do agree however that there is a need for sections (as at present) dealing with things which the species have in common, such as intelligence. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are likely to be sub-divisions of the genus, but so far I haven't found any taxonomic/genetic studies done comparing any of these animals. I agree that it's obvious that jackdaw and rook deserve their own pages, they're considered to be individual species and thus get a species page. However, the crow/raven/Australian bird issue seems less self evident. Australian animals are typically very phylogenetically separated from other species simply do to geography, however if the current information in the article is correct (and it still needs to be verified) then the described re-introduction of Corvus would imply a closer relationship than I would otherwise assume. I guess the summary of my statement is that I agree with you in principle, but feel that the current geographic division makes the most sense until we can find some good science to back up a taxonomic method (which I would prefer, I just haven't stumbled upon it yet). Plcoffey (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only paper I can find so far is: Jollie, M. 1978. Phylogeny of the species of Corvus. The Biologist 60:73-108. Quite old, and well before genetic sequencing – though may use protein structure. Not online as far as I can find. Most modern work seems to be within particular species, or between odd species of larger groups.
Notwithstanding that, I think we should separate out those groups which we do know about. --Richard New Forest (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for that paper, and also couldn't find in online, however it helped me to stumble upon Cryptic Genetic Variation and Paraphyly in Ravens Kevin E. Omland, Cheryl L. Tarr, William I. Boarman, John M. Marzluff, Robert C. Fleischer Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 267, No. 1461 (Dec. 22, 2000), pp. 2475-2482.[1] which I haven't read, but looks like it might help us out. Plcoffey (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that – useful stuff for Common Raven. Only read the free bit, but I think it's saying that North American Common Ravens are really two similar species, one the same as the European one, the other just in California. Doesn't really help for the genus as a whole. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 100 years ago scientists even suspected as much; in old texts you'll find "Northern" and "Western" Raven. There are a few questions to be answered though, as regards the systematics and taxonomy of the "Western Raven". But the biogeographic pattern we find here is nothing unsuspected.
For other Corvus, there are a few (older) studies; certain lineages stand out (you don't even need molecular studies to recognize this), but (and you definitely need molecular studies for 'that) their interrelationships are obscure - how does the Australian group relate to the Indo- and Melanesian ones, how do the South Asian crows relate to the Carrion Crow etc.
Basically the only thing of substance is:
Cibois, A. & Pasquet, E. (1999). Molecular Analysis of the phylogeny of 11 genera of the Corvidae. Ibis 141, 297–306 (not online I think).
FWIW, the pattern is of groups of closest relatives, and several of these groups containing crows and ravens. The Northern Raven (and its relatives) are closer to the Carrion Crow group than to other Palearctic crows or to the Australian ravens (which are closer to the Aussie crows it seems).
Altogether, the matter is I think best straightened out like this:
  • Corvus genus article, which attempts (as far as is possible) to give an overview over the phylogenetic relationships. Focus is on (evolutionary) biology.
  • Crow, Raven, Jackdaw... articles. Rook might be discussed under Crow, as there is no clear pattern internationally - some cultures/languages (German, French, Norwegian, Turkish...) consider it a "crow", others (Danish, Dutch, Russian, Welsh...) have unique vernacular names. These articles would focus on the cultural aspects.
I consider this most practical, because if there would be one article only, this would have to be the genus article of course (the genus is a natural entity - monophyletic - and therefore it is a logical choice for an article). But that would mean that the very different role of say the Northern Raven and the Carrion Crow - very close relatives nonetheless - in human culture, myth and legend would have to be mixed together in one article. This is probably not the easiest course of action.
Simply put, there is probably no two birds as closely related as C. corax and C. corone which in human perception have been treated as so very different critters.
There is a precedent case - Salmon, Trout, Salmo and Oncorhynchus. It is a tiny bit different since the paraphyly apparently goes deeper, but remember - equal taxonomic rank does not mean equal phylogenetic standing; rather, taxonomic rank can only be compared with the ranks above it and below it as part of a sequence of (ideally) nested clades. Thus we actually have an all but identical situation in the fish and the birds. And therefore I suggest we do it just like the Fish people did. Everyone will be satisfied, because every aspect of the problem can then get the appropriate in-depth treatment. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the Ibis article, though being the only thing "of substance", still does not have very much substance as it is. Taxon sampling is scant; it's just that this is better than "almost non-existent" ;-). Basically that and a non-molecular study (in Zoologische Mededelingen or Zoologische Verhandelingen I think) - dealing with some species for which no molecular data exists - are the only modern studies. And both would seem a bit tricky to put into context, because there are far much more gaps than actual knowledge. Funnily, knowledge about which Corvus are sister species is rather good; even though most Corvus look very similar, the subtle differences in calls, eye color, bill habitus etc as exist are usually very informative. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful, Dysmorodrepanis. It reminds me of your earlier point, that there is a strong cultural distinction between raven and crow (and indeed jackdaw and rook). We do need to remember that the articles must cover cultural aspects as well as purely scientific ones. Meanwhile I'll see if I can get hold of the Biology paper. --Richard New Forest (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for Merge[edit]

There doesn't actually seem to be the voting thing going on and its kinda confusing for a new person to know where to add in so here we go. Merge While Crows and Ravens are seperate species, they are not of seperate Genus, or at least Wiki is not portraying them as being of anything other than Corvus. All under Corvus, then your specific Crows and Ravens under there, theres no real information in the Raven anyways, you need to go to an actual species, the Common Raven. This will reduce useless overlap and confusing and be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by Nobody of Consequence (talk · contribs) with the edit summary, "no discussion since March. It makes no sense to merge all three of these, Ravens are not Crows and vice versa. The resultant article would be enormous." Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened[edit]

This discussion reopened at the request of Plcoffey.[2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I stated I do no think that there has been significant consensus to settle this question, and the problems stated above are still apparent. I don't think that Nobody of Consequence had just cause for removing the merge template, and I've asked him to reconsider their removal. since I consider this issue still on the table I want to vote Merge, as per the reasons stated above. I also want to encourage users to read all preceding debate before voting, especially the good points made by Dysmorodrepanis and Richard New Forest. Plcoffey 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoffey (talk • contribs) [reply]
Still no discussion... there appears to be no consensus. How long does this sit in limbo? Just wondering. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that no one has anything useful to add to the discussion above. My impression is that the discussion should be closed. I think Dysmorodrepanis on 17 March 2008 provided the best outline for Corvus related content and a well thought-out justification thereof.[3] His example of the experience with the fish articles was particularly helpful. I'm dubious that a better (or different) consensus will emerge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text currently at Raven should be merged with this article, and Raven should be changed to redirect to Common Raven (or into a disambiguation page). Why is this not obvious? Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kalderi: Crow should stay where it is, the content from Raven should be moved here, and Raven should be redirected to Common raven. "Crow" (at least as it's presented here) encompasses the genus "Corvus" and is a subset of the family "Corvidae." "Corvidae" is a family of birds including the genus "Corvus." Common raven is a species in the genus "Corvus." There are a lot of specific species which have the name "crow" but as a general tern it encompasses ravens, magpies, and many other species that don't have "crow" in their names. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The text is bewildering, I think we need to have a support/oppose bit to get numbers[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OK, given the popularity of raven in searches, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages, and given that 'crow' and 'raven' are epithets applied to various black birds in the genus, many of which are more closely related to each other (eg Australian Raven and Australian Crow), and that the genus IIRC is often called 'true crows', then both should merge to the genus page. Question is, should it be Corvus (genus), or 'true crow'? I like idea of raven redirecting to species Common Raven, while content goes here.

To clarify:

Support[edit]

  1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (not too concerned over what we call the page)[reply]
  2. Also support merge of Corvus to Crow, and Raven to Common Raven (you may want to add a disambig on the Common Raven page to redirect to Corvus if folks are looking for a species other than Common Raven when selecting Raven, i.e. for other species of Raven, see Corvus)......God, now I'm confused!..Pvmoutside (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are confused, then your vote is not relevant. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for being so flippant, was trying to lighten things up a bit. Should have taken things more seriously, I apologize. I also believe people are looking for Common Raven when they type in Raven, so a redirect on Raven to Common Raven would work, but give a disambig on the Common Raven page to give a way look for other species of Raven via a Corvus or Crows and Ravens page?) should do the trick. Crow is more difficult here in the US, when most people refer to crow, they think of American Crow. How do people feel about a redirect of Crow to American Crow? If that works, then an added disambig page for other species of Crow via the Corvus or Crows and Ravens page would work. If the American Crow idea doesn't work, then a redirect of Crow to either Corvus or Crows and Ravens would work...............Pvmoutside (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  • There are a number of suggestions in the nominators complicated plan which I think need individual voting, and I think that the suggestions needs putting in a list to make the nomination clearer. I am apposing because the plan is too complicated. I would probably vote for some of the points, but I do not want any votes to be misunderstood. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I will try to clarify a concrete proposal. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problems:
    • I understand that it is a WP:Bird guideline that the names of pages should be the common name, which in this case is not "Corvus (genus)". To use common names is should probably be "Crows and ravens", and both crow and raven could redirect to it. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A raven could any raven and not just the Common Raven. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, I agree with point 1, and had no preference whether the page was at Corvus or Crows and ravens, so taking the guideline I think the rename is a good one. Yes there are several species called 'raven', though in this case 'raven' without an adjective always refers to Corvus corax, and many guidebooks call it as such. This is tricky come to think of it, maybe you are right and we should just redirect both to Crows and ravens...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing information[edit]

There is no mention of crows in Native American mythology nor is there a mention of The Crow comics or movies in popular media.71.93.120.216 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)TheCrowFan[reply]

Content on Native American mythology may be better placed in the American crow article. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate crow and Corvus articles[edit]

Many people are now confused as to the meaning of "Corvus" People think it simply means crow when it actually refers to all species in the genus. Here's my idea: Create a separate crow article and move most of the information from Corvus to crow. Merge list of Corvus species with Corvus and list crow species in the crow article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.180.85.115 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's a borderline case Catsoccer (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a proposal based on an incorrect understanding of the genus and term. The anon was working of the incorrect idea that the inclusion of the word "raven" in the common name of a species has any phylogenic meaning. It doesn't. Species with "raven" in their common names do not form a single group in the genus, and they are not more closely related to each other than to other crows. Indeed, the Australian raven might as well just be called the "greater Australian crow", because the Australian crow is its closest relative.
Truthfully, if anything should be done, this article should be renamed Crow per WP:COMMONNAME, as it already redirects here and is the plain English word. The problem is that many think that only the species that have "crow" in their common names are actually crows, as the anon was trying to say. That is incorrect. All members of the genus are crows, taxonomicly speaking. We should use the plain English name for them. oknazevad (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 22:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Corvus (genus) → Crow – This article should be renamed Crow per WP:COMMONNAME, as it already redirects here and is the plain English word. The problem is that many think that only the species that have "crow" in their common names are actually crows. All members of the genus Corvus are crows, taxonomicly speaking. We should use the plain English name for them, and for the genus. There's plenty of examples around of articles that use the common English term for a taxonomic group with the Latin name as a redirect and the appropriate taxobox that describes the level of the commonality. Turtle is the first that jumps to mind.
The move will also reinforce the taxonomic fact that species common names have no bearing on phylogenity, that is to say, there's no stronger relationship between the Australian raven and the common raven than between the latter and the Australian crow, despite the common names (indeed, the Australian species are the ones that are more closely related). just seems to me that the current title fails COMMONNAME and common English, especially when "crow" already redirects here. oknazevad (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Support, common name, and if the RM fails the nominator will have officially eaten crow. Randy Kryn 17:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As I said somewhere else recently, this isn't the Latin Wikipedia. If a common English name exists, it should be used. It is always better to refer to things in the manner that people refer to them, as opposed to hiding behind overly complicated titles. The present title has the double disadvantage of using parenthetical disambiguation that wouldn't be necessary with the proposed title. RGloucester — ☎ 02:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, WP:NATURAL, and other good reasons, too. 73.207.160.35 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. I'm neutral on the proposal. No such user (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The genus Corvus includes jackdaws, ravens, and rooks, as well as crows. There's nothing "natural" about using English names in a misleading fashion, which is the case when the name used commonly for a subset of a group is then used as the name of the group. "Crow" for the genus Corvus fails WP:PRECISE. The parenthesised disambiguation is only needed because the disambiguation isn't at "Crow", as it should be. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The taxonomic terms have precise meanings that the English words lack and this can easily cause confusion. HBW uses "Crows" for the family Corvidae. Aa77zz (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Typically, the English (common) name is only used when there are only that specific name is used for the entire group (i.e. crow would only be used if all the species were called crows)....Since the disambig page only switches to corvus (genus), you could create a crow page from the disambig (like Raven), and add a disambig header to link to Corvus for all species (Crows, Ravens, Rooks, etc).....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(One reason is that SIAs aren't subject to the same restrictions as ordinary DAB pages: they can have more than one link per entry, include images, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • A case could be made for moving this page to Corvus and current contents of that page to Corvus (disambiguation). All those names stem from wikt:corvus, Latin for 'raven', which is also the source of the genus name, and are not too prominent (corvus (constellation) is about the best known). But that's the issue for another RM. No such user (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support such a move in a further RM. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Corvus (genus) and Crow -- one is an entire genus, the other one member. Crow should be a separate article, not redirected here. Montanabw(talk) 07:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - given that ravens and other things are in this genus, and clearly not crows, this would not be an appropriate move. As for whether a new Crow article should be spawned, I don't know. It's a little tricky, given that the term means different things in different locales, and can not be precisely allocated. It's even worse than monkey and fish in that respect, which while paraphyletic, at least do mean something precise. I would support a move of Corvus (genus) to the primary topic Corvus however.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Crow" as a set index article makes sense to me; see Yew for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could see that as a suitable solution. Something starting with a sentence like: "Crow is a term that is part of the common name of many species in the genus Corvus, and is sometimes used to refer to all members of the genus collectively. Species with the word "crow" in their common name include:" and then list the species. If so, I totally agree with the move of this article to the undisambiguated title, as only the constellation is even remotely as nitable (and even there it's a relatively minor use). The thing I wanted to emphasize is that there's no phylogenic meaning as to whether a species has "crow", "raven" or something else as part of its name (a misconception that keeps popping up here), and that the entire genus is at times refered to collectively as "crows", which is seen in the literature and even this article's sources. A SIA seems a good way to do that, much as the current raven article actually does. oknazevad (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

SIA created[edit]

So, as no one else had done it, I went and created the set index article at crow, based on the above discussion. It really just consists of the entries at List of Corvus species with the word "crow" in the listed common name (hooray copy and paste), along with a picture of a carrion crow (which would actually be the species which the word first described when one considers its range includes England) and the text I mentioned in my last comment. Don't think it should have much more than that, else it becomes too far away from an SIA. May make some more tweaks. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After the failed RM, I read this article more thoroughly, and concluded that Corvus is some 70% crows, 25% ravens, and the lone jackdaw... based on List of Corvus species. Only, I failed to share that insight here... although I did sorta advocate creating a SIA in the debate.
So, after all, the previous setup (crow redirecting to Corvus (genus)) was quite reasonable, as a vast amount of information in Corvus was related to "crows" (however you define them). Now we have three list-y, SIA-y articles: List of Corvus species, Crow, and Raven, which is in my opinion an overkill. I'd rather revert your work.
We came in disagreement on two totally unrelated articles, the other being Brandy :(
No such user (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just it. There are those who, like me, thought there was no reason that this article shouldn't be at "crow", and those who thought there should be a separate article because not all Corvus are crows. Problem with that, as I've tried to argue, is that whether a species' common name includes the word "crow", "raven", "jackdaw" or "rook" is scientifically meaningless; species named "raven" are no more related to each other than to other crows. Even birding guides refer to jackdaws as "small crows" (see the one linked above in the move discussion). As such, I just think that the term "crow" is scientifically synonymous with the genus, and therefore the genus article should be at the common English word, but there was no consensus for that. Subsequently, a set index article seems the best way to balance the orthinological meaning of the term and the common use that reserves it to only the midsize species that are listed at the SIA. oknazevad (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that part of reasoning, but do we really have to have a separate article on each topic? As I said, overlap between Corvus and crow is about 70%, so having a separate list of crows is an unnecessary duplication. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your effort, but I'm having second thoughts if our readers are best served with three or four very similar articles. Let's wait for few more opinions... No such user (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crows and scarecrows[edit]

The second sentence under the "Diet" section seems to be at least partially conjecture, this part specifically: "The origin of placing scarecrows in grain fields resulted from the crow's incessant damaging and scavenging". The entire sentence is copied near verbatim from the source it cites[1], which in of itself is neither an academic source, nor cites any. I believe the claim that the origin of scarecrows is to scare away crows is conjecture, because in languages other than English, there is no mention of crows in the name (such as the French "épouvantail", derived from "épouvanter", meaning to horrify[2]), and in others, birds which aren't crows are part of the word "scarecrow" (an example being the Polish "strach na wróble", which literally translates to "fear for sparrows"[3][4], although "strach" on its own is also sometimes used to mean scarecrow[5]). Hence, I believe that that part of the sentence should be removed. Fatewhisper (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: I mostly mean that the sentence makes it seem like scarecrows are, or were historically, targeted at crows specifically, when in fact they are not the only bird that causes damage to crops. Fatewhisper (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20141009013506/http://www.crowbusters.com/facts.htm
  2. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A9pouvantail
  3. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/strach_na_wr%C3%B3ble
  4. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wr%C3%B3bel#Polish
  5. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/strach#Polish

Added Information[edit]

I added more information regarding foraging behaviour and intelligence, specifically regarding ravens. I also changed the lead and reworded a couple of things throughout the article. Because of the new information there are also new references. I added all of the info in one edit instead of multiple edits.Sloth Mode (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crows, why so negative?[edit]

I am frankly appalled by the negative content of this information on such wonderful, intelligent birds! There is actually very little info on their lives, communities, and so much more. They are amazing birds, and not everyone who lives in rural areas hates them. You really need to rethink how this article encourages negative thinking about crows. 67.6.179.182 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corvus&oldid=1195047152"