Talk:King Island emu

Birds Low‑importance

King Island emu 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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.

Australia: Tasmania / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal King Island emu is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Extinction Low‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

King Island emu is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 4, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
April 13, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Skin in Paris and skeleton in Florence[edit]

On what grounds are these assigned to D. ater? It appears that no proper records were made during collection. As a result, all the images we have in the two dwarf emu articles could be interchangeable. Also, it appears both types were called D. ater once, even from Kangaroo Island.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epithet change[edit]

Dromaius novaehollandiae ater becomes Dromaius novaehollandiae minor http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/subspecies/ --Melly42 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see a detailed explanation for that conclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This emendation is based on The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Non-passerines, 4th edition (Dickinson & Remsen, 2013) --Melly42 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, know if they write anything about it? I'm pretty sure the fact that the name has been used so frequently afterwards along with descriptions would make it valid. By the way, this is probably the wrong talk page to discuss this,would be more visible on the article talk. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interesting to read Viellot's original description. BTW Dromaius ater was also used for the Kangaroo Island Emu which is now Dromaius baudinianus http://books.google.de/books?id=xpUBocGB12YC&pg=PA21&dq=Dromaius+novaehollandiae+ater+Vieillot&hl=de&sa=X&ei=F7HaUtK7HKuh7AbY44H4CQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dromaius%20novaehollandiae%20ater%20Vieillot&f=false --Melly42 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Paris specimen was mentioned in his description, and that turned out to be the King Island bird, which is why the name has been associated with that (explained in the article). FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has the source and can explain the rationale, it would be nice. It is a bit premature to change the article before we even know why. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this anyway. Though this now means that all "ater" based names are supposedly synonyms of the mainland subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:King Island Emu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC) This is an excellent article! Just a few issues I noticed:[reply]

Mention the trinomial authority in the lead.
14.000 years ago --- 14000 or 14,000 years ago. Same with "3.600 Emus" in Extinction.
In Description, There was no seasonal variations in plumage 'was' should be 'were'.
Subfossil remains of the King Island Emu show that the tibia was ca 330 mm. (13 in) long I am not sure what "ca" stands for.
Could you add something specifically about who were this Emu's predators? Perhaps before the If unable to flee, ... line, you should clearly state who fed upon these birds. But that's if literature is available.

I await your replies. I believe this will be a GA after you fix the above. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, the issues should be fixed now. The sources don't mention natural predators, and I'm not sure there were any on the small island, so it only refers to hunting dogs introduced by humans. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you have resolved all the issues. Looks perfect now. I promote it as a GA! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King Island emu. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]