Woodpecker 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.
I propose moving this page to woodpecker for the following reasons.
The family page is more important than the subfamily page.
The term woodpecker can be used to describe the whole family as well as specifically the subfamily.
Woodpecker gets higher levels of traffic than Picidae.
The throughout the text the group would be referred to as woodpeckers and piculets, if that is preferred. The idea of the move is not to suggest the whole family are woodpeckers, if people feel that they are not (personally I think of them as such, but we'll see what other people think). The idea is simply to have the article title on the name that gets the biggest number of hits (802 a day as opposed to 35). As an incentive, if this is approved, I will push the article to Good Article Status within a month of the move. Scouts honour. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, it covers Picinae, the subfamily, and I suggest moving it to Picinae, currently a redirect. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Having a fair deal of Neotropical experiance, everybody in that part of the world, regardless of background (random birders to pro ornithologists), consider and speak about piculets as "just small woodpeckers" (and the vast majority of piculets are, after all, Neotropical). A comparably situation applies to wrynecks (at least in Europe). So, I'd also feel fine about just referring to them all as woodpeckers; no need for "woodpeckers and piculets" or alike throughout the text (except in cases where descriptions specifically refer to some - but not all - of the subfamilies). • Rabo³ • 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm sure it's where they started. The wrynecks are a minor stumbling block because they are normally called just that, but they are woodpeckers, and it makes sense to have the family where you would expect it jimfbleak (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
File:Ivory Billed Woodpecker.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The recent edits on other pages moving several Picoides species to other genera has led to some orphaned genera. Example: the Red-cockaded woodpecker was recently edited changing its genus to Leuconotopicus, which is not mentioned on this page as a genus within Picidae. I don't know enough about the current state of bird taxonomy to know whether to add Leuconotopicus to this page, or to revert the other changes to species pages. May be in need of an expert eye to untangle. Chanther (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have acquired the 2014 book Woodpeckers of the World: A Photographic Guide by Gerard Gorman with a view to working on this article and taking it to GA. The book has a twenty page introductory section with a lot of general information on the family. If anyone else would like to join me, they are welcome to do so. I am also expanding some of the species stubs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was one of the people that got it to B class, so I guess I'll keep helping. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 18:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
A pre-GAN comment (not sure if I will get to review it), but it seems a bit strange that the ivory billed woodpecker is mentioned several times throughout the article, but not in the status section, where it may be most relevant. I think you could list extinct and threatened species there. The last paragraph under "Habitat requirements" seems misplaced (says nothing about habitats), and could probably be moved to the status section. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. I have moved the paragraph you suggested and will see what I can find on extinct and endangered species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The caption is way too long for the image in the General characteristics section, pick one topic to briefly glance over in the caption, and let the article do most of the explaining User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You keep switching from singular to plural, like with, "The largest surviving species is the great slaty woodpecker..." and right next to it, "the probably extinct imperial woodpeckers," be consistent where you can User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Basic rule of thumb for commas and adjectives, if you can't switch them, use a comma (like, "... have short strong legs," should be, "... have short, strong legs") I fixed that last one by the way User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be wikilinking things in the lead and then not in the rest of the article. If you wikilink something in the lead, you still have to wikilink the first mention of it in the rest of the article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You may want to wikilink all the big, sciencey words (like "collagen fibers"). Think of it like if sixth-grade you didn't know it, wikilink it User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you at one point reshuffle this article a bit? I noticed that sometimes words aren't wikilinked on their first mention but are wikilink some ways later (like piculets) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
In the further reading section, the link for "A phylogenetic analysis of woodpeckers and their allies using 12S, Cyt b, and COI nucleotide sequences (class Aves; order Piciformes)" won't open for me (but that just might be by crap wifi) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
you wikilinked bill twice and wryneck on the second mention in the General characteristics section
Done these apart from the list of genera. That predated my involvement with the article, and if you think it is important, I shall have to make enquiry at the Birds Project page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
that might be best because some species may have been invalidated since whenever this list was made, or it may be incomplete User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I asked at the Bird Project page and Shyamal has added some references for the "List of Genera" section. Are you happy with that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, if you're taking this to FA, you might want to get more recent refs. I see one from the 1984 and another from the 1800s User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's an issue, it depends on what is being cited. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the useful review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)