Talk:Cinereous vulture

Untitled

synonym monk vulture

There are two unrelated species of black vulture in Eurasia and America.

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This vulture is best known under Cinereous Vulture, which is also the name used by the IOC world name list. Google counts: Eurasian Black Vulture: 478 (9,130); Monk Vulture: 266 (3,470); Cineceous Vulture: 517 (50,000). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, that are UNIQUE hits, not the the total number google spits out. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

added raw google hits in parentheses -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Support: less clumsy and less ambiguous - though I rather like 'Monk Vulture'... Maias (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I am with Maias on the Monk Vulture, but it is less used and the IOC used the Cinereous Vulture. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: the commoner and older name in books dealing with the Asian region. Shyamal (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per IOC and reducing ambiguity of name. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. • Rabo³ • 21:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: we're not in the business of imposing logic and tidiness onto names; Wikipedia policy clearly states that article titles should reflect established usage. To put the figures above into perspective, a Google Search for ' "Black Vulture" Europe' gives 31,000 hits - this is the name by which the species is most widely known, and usage of the two/three "new" names is much less prevalent. To my mind, the solution most in line with WP policy would be to have two articles: "Black Vulture (Old World vulture)" and "Black Vulture (New World vulture)" and a disambig page. Any other option is surely akin to social engineering. SP-KP (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  '"Black Vulture" Europe' gives '633' unique hits, not 31,000 hits. The search term is also misleading because it will find cases of 'American Black Vulture' and Europe in a single page and count them. '"Black Vulture" Europe -american' gives only 8,940 hits. Cinereous Vulture the way you searched gives 50,000 hits. So, established usage is obvious with the Cinereous Vulture -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. Can you clarify how you're calculating the numbers of "unique hits" you've given above, so that others can verify them. If I can establish that what you say is correct, I'd be more than happy to withdraw my opposition. SP-KP (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I can. When you type in "Cinereous Vulture" in google, you get the total number of hits. When you actually go and check the various hits, a much lower number of hits is found by the google search engine (scroll down to the end of the page), ommiting hits that are duplicates or copies of pages already provided. One thing to keep in mind with google is that the number of hits varies slightly during the day with the amount of traffic it has to deal with as they have time-out features to avoid overloading of the search engines. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cinereous vulture. 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://archive.is/20130415012355/http://avis.indianbiodiversity.org/fauna-of-british-india-2nd-ed-vol-v-1928/cinereous-vulture-aegypius-monachus.html to http://avis.indianbiodiversity.org/fauna-of-british-india-2nd-ed-vol-v-1928/cinereous-vulture-aegypius-monachus.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ci.manhattan.ks.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1388

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) 01:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Not true: "a large raptorial bird that is distributed through much of Eurasia"

Going by the map, the aforesaid is misleading. Seems the vulture's homelands are abodes with at least drier summers, from Iberia and Sub-Loirean France through to the Middle East and onto Central Asia. All of the Arabian and Indian Subcontinents and most of Siberia and China are seemingly not shown as vulture abodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.88.45 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wolves and foxes

The following sentence has factual and logical errors: "Gray wolves (Canis lupus) and foxes are also mentioned as potential nest predators, but since neither one can climb trees and there are also no incidents of predation on inaccessible cliff nests, this seems unlikely." If this sentence from the article is true: "the nests can range up to 1.5 to 12 m (4.9 to 39.4 ft) high in a large tree such as an oak, juniper,[23] wild pear,[23] almond or pine trees," and dogs can climb 4 meter, vertical walls, then a grey wolf is certainly capable of pulling down a nest that's 1.5 meters or more from the ground. Foxes certainly do climb trees. The assumption that all cliff nests are "inaccessible" to all wolves and foxes is not reasonable.

Citizen127 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

IUCN Red List update

Hi all, just updated the IUCN Red List reference because the old one wasn't working. Since I'm new to this whole thing I would appreciate if someone could double check I did everything correctly. O andras (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)