Talk:Flycatcher
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 18:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
– Flycatcher would work better as a set index article containing just the bird families, with the remaining meanings on a disambiguation page. After the proposed moves, I will replace the bird entries on the dab with a single link to the SIA, which is the primary topic. Nick Number (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. The primary topic for the term is the collection of birds known by the name, which should be indexed with more expansive information. bd2412 T 19:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Don't see the benefit to the reader. This move would make it more difficult for the reader of they were looking for any of the non-birds listed at the dab page, while not making anything easier or clearer for those who are looking for birds. Maybe I'm missing something? Jenks24 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose—Tiered disambiguation pages probably aren't helpful. If there's to be a single article about all flycatcher birds, then fine; maybe that should be at Flycatcher. But the candidate isn't really that, it's essentially a disambiguation page, not an SIA. Per Jenks, this doesn't seem helpful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The proposed heirarchy of DABs has nothing to recommend it that I can see. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Birds section is a pretty random mashup
editIt seems to me that the Birds section of this disambiguation page is a mess. Between the two major flycatcher families, there are nearly 800 species that rightfully be considered "flycatchers". Yet the page lists about a dozen individual species chosen seemingly at random, plus a few genera, apparently also chosen at random. The most sensible approach would be just to include links to the two families, and limit any additional entries beyond that to birds called "flycatcher" but included in other families. The only other approach that is at all systematic and consistent would be to list every species, which would be counter-productive. Rnickel (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Revised article to group by "flycatcher families", including the more minor ones, and "Other birds known as flycatchers", which include individual genera and species scattered around the rest of the animal kingdom. Rnickel (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)