Talk:Little tern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Least Tern[edit]

What is the current verdict on the taxonomy of Sternula antillarum? The AOU and SACC both recognize it as a separate species but WP does not. (Speaking of which, the SACC has apparently already moved the whole "little tern" complex to Sternula to follow Bridge et al 2005 which is presumely the same source for Collinson.) -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 08:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on which book one reads. The BOU treat them as conspecific, but HBW (which Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds follows) agrees with the AOU in treating them as a distinct species; I'd suggest that this page should follow suit and split them. I'd also suggest that California Least Tern be merged with Least Tern; generally, subspecies are best treated on the same page as their relevant species. Unless anyone comments otherwise in the next few days, I'll move California Least Tern to Least Tern, and incorporate the Least Tern info currently at Little Tern into that page. - MPF 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with MPF here. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (temporarily in Albuquerque)
Ditto and have marked the article for splitting. Note that Least Tern exists as a redirect page. Not sure about the merge tho as California Least Tern is a rather lognish article already (as tern articles go). If it is merged, please change taxonomy on Tern page accordingly - it is as of now listed as own-article ssp. under Least Tern. Dysmorodrepanis 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also agree with the split. As a suggestion, if there is a conflict from one authority not splitting it, and anorther does, suggest keeping the info consistent with the authority if the given Common Name is entirely governed by the authority (i.e. Green-winged Teal-not split by the Americans, split by the Brits. Keep Green-winged Teal info consistent with the Americans, keep Common Teal info consistent with the Brits, and explan the issue under text for both birds.....too complicated for this site??????? pmeleski
I support proposed split, jimfbleak 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with jimfbleak. I thought they were two species, guess not. --Mitternacht90 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Carrying out moves and edits as suggested - MPF 15:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

the article on Californian Least Tern should not have been destroyed[edit]

The article Californian Least Tern was destroyed in a merge into least tern. the article covered an important subspecies in california and was focussed and well written on that subject. that article and its history should be restored. Least Tern can stand as it is. Anlace 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This article stands as California Least Tern. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little tern. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)