Talk:Mistle thrush

Mistle thrush 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 August 7, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 7, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Birds Low‑importance

Mistle thrush 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.

Conservation status[edit]

While this bird is classified as "least concern" internationally, in Britain the RSPB has given it "amber" status because of a decline in UK numbers. Is this worth mentioning in the article, or is it too country-specific? Perodicticus (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

given the large range of this species, it would be better if it could be tied in to a more general trend. Jimfbleak (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR note[edit]

Some info in the culture section added after the FAC needs citation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak I realize this is a non-bird dummy question, but I don't understand the punctuation here:

At least eight subspecies have been proposed, but the differences are mainly clinal, with birds of the nominate subspecies becoming paler and less densely spotted in the east of the range. The currently accepted subspecies are:[11]

Turdus viscivorus viscivorus, Linnaeus, 1758. The nominate subspecies.

T. v. bonapartei, Cabanis, 1860.

T. v. deichleri, Erlanger, 1897.

For WP:URFA/2020, no other concerns, marking Satisfactory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, is this better? At least eight subspecies have been proposed, but the differences between them are mainly clinal, with birds being paler and less densely spotted in the east of the range. The currently accepted subspecies are... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I lost track of this ping and it came to me in the middle of the night that I had forgotten it. No, it is not the wording I don't understand, but the punctuation. Eight subspecies have been proposed, but then follows a list of three that are accepted.

Turdus viscivorus viscivorus, Linnaeus, 1758. The nominate subspecies.
T. v. bonapartei, Cabanis, 1860.
T. v. deichleri, Erlanger, 1897.

So, t v v, linn is the nominate subspecies ... should there be an endash or something different than the period, followed by a sentence fragment? What is the year (the date they were identified)? And I guess the names are the discovers? This seems like a very minor and stupid thing, but it's confusing to a non-bio person like me :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Is this clearer? I'm reluctant to put anything between the name and the date of the naming since author/date is absolutely standard Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer now to this dummy ... thanks ! (I wonder if this convention could be spelled out somewhere in the subspecies article, and then you would only have to provide a link, rather than add the “named by”?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]