Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Delichon/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delichon

[edit]

Another bird genus bid for GT, eventually I hope to get it to FT, but It will some time before I can get the lead article to FA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I wouldn't hold your breath for the New World vultures; I don't have good sources, and nobody appears to be pushing the topic despite all the FAs and GAs. I don't think Condors alone will run since they are in different genera Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to use English names where possible, and for the river martin and chough FTs that was straightforward. The problem here is that House Martin is a standard alternative name and redirect for Common House Martin (That article went through FA as House Martin, and I only recently moved it to IOC Common House Martin when I realised the potential for confusion). If you Google "house martin", you will get thousands of hits for the species, not the genus. Delichon is clearcut, whereas I suspect that if I'd used the English name I'd have comments pointing out the ambiguity. For many genera there is no simple English name - see kite where any genus level FT would have to use the scientific name. It's pure chance that the first two bird FT/GTs had a convenient unambiguous English name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move Delichon to "House Martin (genus)" then? Nergaal (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that format is an absolute last resort when there is no sensible English or scientific name, as with Kite above. If there is a clear consensus to change the name of the Delichon article I'll do so, but many bird articles are written under the scientific name where there is no English name. I've raised your suggestion here for feedback Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, map replaced. It's bound to be a fairly crude representation of the range (wobbly green line) since species in the Himalayas just aren't mapped to the detail that you might get in western europe, and the boundaries may be uncertain. Do you have a more detailed source than Angela Turner or Pam Rasmussen's books? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no reasons to doubt your references. Would you like me to even out some of the irregularities in the margins of the green area? I do not know how many people would interpret a wobbly line on a map to indicate an uncertain boundary. The article does not say anything about a uncertain poorly mapped-out range anywhere near the map that I could see, so perhaps this could be added to the map caption and image description. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> If you can make it look better, that would be good, thanks. I'll clarify the caption. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks for that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]