User talk:LinkyWulfe

Welcome!

Hello, LinkyWulfe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torresian crow

Hi LinkyWulfe: In this edit, you asserted that there are three species of crow native to Australia. Can I ask what the third is? As far as I know, Little and Torresian crows are the only two native crows. House crow is a vagrant, and thus not native. MeegsC (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Torressian crow

Technically there are only 2 native crows. The third "native" was the Bismark crow. It is the closest relative to the Torresian crow. the reason I noted it there was because it is infrequently found in Australia and most likey self-indroduced itself back into Australia. I apologise for any confusion. LinkyWulfe (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages

Hi LinkyWulfe: It's great to see a new editor working on bird articles — welcome aboard! In the future, it's probably better to discuss some of your changes on the article talk pages, rather than expecting other editors to notice your messages in the edit summaries. Only the last edit shows up in a watchlist, so it's easy to lose the "conversational thread" if you make more than one edit at a time! Let me know if you have any questions... MeegsC (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian raven

Regarding [1] this - you have rewritten much of a section in WP:FA with a mere summary "fixed missing capital letters". Please justify such edits in a more informative way. As to caps, see MOS:LIFE. Materialscientist (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forest raven

Listen, I was (and still am) one ofthe biggest proponents of capitalised names for bird pages. However, mid-last year we had a final showdown after a seven year impasse, with the result that the majority of editors voted to have lower case names for bird species. Mostr bird editors were pretty unhappy about this, but can't just keep sticking in capitalised names due to a consensus being reached. Also, you're being overinclusive in harping on about other ravens in raven species pages, and ignoring the genetic discoveries that show how closely related aussie crows and ravens are for some reason - yes they are distinct from each other but are alot more closely related to each other than to English crows or ravens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Forest raven

If it really bothers you that much, I won't go through the articles and capitalise the names of the birds. Yes, Aussie crows and ravens are more closely related to each other than the European crows and ravens are but they are not closely related as many people think. The only real similarities are the iris colour and overall size (even though the ravens are larger). I am not ignoring the genetic discoveries, yes they are (somewhat) closely related to each other but just because they are closely related that does not make them crows, seriously. Common ravens are closely related to crows such as the pied crow, and yet no-one goes around calling them crows do they? Australian raven species are no different. I am not trying to cover up the genetic discoveries, far from it. I am just trying to make it clear that our ravens are not crows. If it really bothers you I will stop, but don't expect me to allow the lie that Australian ravens are actually crows to spread. Wikipedia was one of the main reasons people believed this, because someone came along and put their personal opinion in an article and not actual fact. This was the reason I joined Wikipedia in the first place. In case you didn't already know, most people now consider wikipedia a very unreliable source of information. I am not trying to destroy articles and cover up facts, I am trying to make wikipedia a reliable source of information. LinkyWulfe (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LinkyWulfe, if you walk down the streets of Sydney and Melbourne and ask the average nonbirdwatacher what the black corvids are, I can guarantee that 8 or 9 out of 10 of them will say "crows". I agree that it is incorrect, but htat doesn't detract from the fact that it occurs - and hence pointing it out (as Ian Rowley did who has probably studied Australian corvids in more detail than anyone else) and explaining that it is a vernacular name is better and more educational than ignoring it, don't you think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I got the measurements out of the HANZAB books which are the most authoritative sources of information - if you have different measurements (or any other factoids) you have to add where they came from.

And finally, a red link can mean a page which isn't made yet, not necessarily one that has been deleted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the term "crow" can (and is) applied to ANY corvid, not just the Australian ones? Yes, you can walk down the streets and ask people what the black corvids of Australia are, most people will have no idea what a "corvid" is. As for why people think they are crows, the majority of Australians don't even know what a raven is either, they have either never heard of it or they think it's just an alternate name for a "crow". I have asked a great many people what they think a "raven" is, they either say "another name for a crow" or "what's a raven?". Only a few of us Aussies even know what it is, and of those few, only an even smaller amount (mainly bird experts and wildlife rehabilitators) know that we have native ravens. When I saw what someone had put in the Common raven article, I was quite dissapointed, as there was no point to it being there, and prooved nothing. They had stated that the name "raven" had been applied to other corvids, and that the Common raven was the only true raven. They had even gone as far as to single out Ausralian species and say that they "are clearly closer in behaviour and appearance to the other Australian crows", which is entirely untrue. They may be similar in appearance, but (especially with the Australian and Forest raven) the behaviour and breeding habits are very similar. They both mate for life, they both stay in flocks then form permanent territories, they both have the same amount of young, and also have very similar eating habits (although the common raven eats more meat). The ravens here are not crows. They have proportionally larger and thicker beaks, longer nasal bristles, are much stockier, have rounded or wedge-shaped tails, longer and more pointed wings and larger talons. It's not just our ravens being treated like this, to many people our mountains are tiny hills (compared to other countries mountains, this is true, but considering how flat Australia is, the Great Dividing Range is not a mere cluster of hills, but a mountain range, and should be treated as such. It is the same with our ravens).LinkyWulfe (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So right, which of these realities on wikipedia do you think will be more helpful educating people? (a) noting that lots of aussies call all black corvids "crows" and then explaining that some are ravens, espeicially those in urban Sydney, melbourne, hobart, Canberra etc....or (b) ignoring this and missing an opportunity to explian to people who might not be even aware of this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian raven genetically is alot more closely related to the Australian crow than the common raven, despite what you might wish to be true. It just is. This is part of the fascinating stuff of evolution. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]