Talk:Meliphagoidea

Birds Mid‑importance

Meliphagoidea 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Questions

Are the "earlier assumptions" those made by the AMNH ornithologists or the ones earlier than that?
Do Jønsson and Fjeldså say that merging the spinebills into the Meliphagidae is the most sensible method? If so, I think the suggestion should be worded as coming from them. If not, the footnote shouldn't cover the suggestion, which might need a citeneeded tag.
Is all this going to be changed in ten or twenty years, like the previous proposals? If this seems likely, maybe the article should say things like "Current views are..." and "The most recent analyses suggest..."
~~Why "Sahul"?~~ Never mind.

—JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Anti Sibley-Ahlquist Diatribe

The current written form of this article (2010/10/12) contains many inflamatory and disparaging remarks against the seminal work of Sibley and Ahlquist. Yes, Sibley and Ahlquist taxononmy made errors... the work is over twenty years old and has been superceeded. But the wording used in this article is simply inappropriate. I am removing these remarks.Grant Gussie (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]