User talk:Trilletrollet

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Trilletrollet!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaean classification[edit]

Hi Trilletrollet - please stick with Linnaean classification (Ordo, Familia, etc.), not 'cladus', as cladus names are highly unfamiliar and not regularly formed. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Rank-based bird taxonomy is complete dogshit tbh. The IOC (and many others) now consider Caprimulgiformes to only include Caprimulgidae, while the other families have been moved to separate orders. I was just trying to bring this site up to date with the scientific consensus. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but IOC don't use fancy clade names that no-one has heard of or have a clue about what they mean; the others should be moved to Steatornithiformes, Nyctibiiformes, Podargiformes, etc., please - MPF (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Strisores is a pretty well-known name that is widely used in recent literature (please read it, it's very interesting). Also, since all of these orders are monotypic (containing only one family each), I didn't see any reason to have categories for both them and the families, since they're literally the same groups under different names.
I think I'll stay away from bird taxonomy from now on, if that makes you happy. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be well-known amongst researchers in the group; it isn't among the general public (and particularly relevant, isn't among bird photographers who might be adding photos to Commons). It also carries no indication of rank, nor any indication of its type genus. The orders may all be monofamilial in respect of living members, but there may well be fossil families that could make them polyfamilial, so the orders should be kept separate. It really is best to stick to the IOC classification, please! - MPF (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Yes, there are some fossil taxa that may be part of these groups (most of them are just tentatively placed there though). But if people want to add photos of the living birds, they can easily just add them to the family categories, which is where all the living taxa are located. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Ok, I have turned all of these orders into separate categories. Sorry for any mess I may have created by trying to update things. I hope you have a good Yule 🎄 (or whatever holiday you celebrate, idk) —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mange takk! Og glædelig Jul! - MPF (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanerpetidae vs Albanerpetontidae[edit]

I don't really care about you changing this on Commons, but could I ask you not to try to change this on enwiki? "Albanerpetontidae" is overwhelmingly more common in the academic literature than Albanerpetidae is, even among recent authors [1] [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Ok, whatever. Albanerpetontidae is grammatically wrong, but I guess modern palaeontologists don't care. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]