Talk:Coraciiformes

Birds High‑importance

Coraciiformes 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

High

This article has been rated as High-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.

Untitled

how does a kingfisher breath

Wrong Data

I think the info in the article is WRONG. Alcedinidae, Brachypteraciidae, Cerylidae, Coraciidae, Halcyonidae, Meropidae, Momotidae, Phoeniculidae, Todidae, Upupidae families belong to order Coraciae not Coraciiformes. Coraciiformes is an order which includes suborders Striges, Caprimulgi, Cypseli, Colii, Trogones, Piciformes and this article Coraciae. Source [1] [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obuli (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those links cite sources that are over 80 years old! Taxonomy has moved on slightly since then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, my initial source was Dictionary of Biology Terms, 1998 published by Turkish Language Association. For a source in English language, they were the first ones I got in google. You mean there is no order as "Coraciae" anymore? I do not think so.Obuli (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Coraciae" existed in 80s Sibley-Ahlquist_taxonomy#Coraciae but it seems it is still present [4][5]Obuli (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All avian orders end in -formes (Procellariiformes, Sphenisciformes, Anseriformes. The first one you cited just now [6] has Coraciae as a Parvclass, not order, of which Coraciiformes is one of the constituent orders (one of many) [7]. Given the great deal of uncertainty that remains about the arrangement of the various families and order with relation to each other, and the fact that things like Parvclass and superorders are seldom used compared to orders and families (we don't have articles on most of them) this article should stay where it is for now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rerated as C

I rerated as C (was tossing up between C and Start). Covers evolution likely, but needs info on ecology/characteristics etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxobox shows Passerimorphae as parent taxon

The Template:Taxonomy/Coraciiformes page which drives the Template:Automatic_taxobox uses a taxonomy that directly contradicts the taxonomy in the article by placing Coraciiformes in Passerimorphae. As far as I can see the taxonomy in the article is more current. I've understood the technical details now, and know technically what to do to correct it, but am at a loss how the taxonomy behind the automatic taxoboxes is meant to be maintained. I haven't found anything documented. Should I correct Template:Taxonomy/Coraciiformes as I see fit whenever I stumble over a contradiction to the article? Should I worry about keeping things consistent, and also correct all the other Template:Taxonomy/stuff that use the same out-of-date source? Or should I not worry at all, and leave the Template:Taxonomy to some deep experts which will correct things as they see fit? Stupid girl (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coraciiformes. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123164135/http://www.untamedscience.com/biodiversity/animals/chordates/birds/kingfishers-rollers-hornbills-etc to http://www.untamedscience.com/biodiversity/animals/chordates/birds/kingfishers-rollers-hornbills-etc

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]