Talk:Albinism in birds

Refimprove

Someone tagged this article with {{Refimprove}} and this was immediately reverted. I side with the tagger (anon or not), as this article cites only a single reference, and given the length of time this article has existed (along with other material ported into it from the Albinism main article), the odds of every fact in this article being citable to this single source is very, very close to zero. What needs to happen is that the facts that are sourced to that reference need to be marked as such with <ref...> formatting (carefully - if an entire paragraph can in every detail be cited to this source, then just add the ref to that paragraph, but more commonly a paragraph will need a ref element, then one or more ref elements or {{fact}} tags if no sources given, for later interpolations into that paragraph, and then another ref to the original source at the end for the rest of the material that was cited to the same source before the interpolation). I am restoring the refimprove tag (but to the refs section, where it belongs). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I created this article when I used a different account name. Every fact is cited from the reference provided. I don't believe any material has been ported into it.[1] You added a bunch of see alsos, and that's about it. In your inline comments you referred to the size of the article ("One source is not enough for an article this long"), but let's not forget that you marked it a stub at one point[2], and it is no longer than it was then. Not really a consistent position, is it? I have added Harvard-style notes in each paragraph. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally, do you realize that the common form of wiki-lawyering such as you offer above has created a huge disincentive to actually write new material for the encyclopedia? A person creates a simple article of a few paragraphs and instead of a "well that's nice" from anyone, the writer is slapped with stub tags, reference templates, and all manner of the ridiculous in-games that wikipedia has to offer. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood; wasn't aware you were the same user, so I thought there were two major contributors. Stubbiness of an article and actual word count are not necessarily closely related; depth of coverage and article structure are what determine a stub or a non-stub, more than just byte size. But I don't feel about it strongly either way. I converted the Harvard notes to inline citations as the more usual style here (it's more convenient for readers to be able to click on the links to get to the refs section than manually scroll down there) in the process of moving the refs to the end of each paragraphs (which was so that it is clearer that there is no unsourced material in the article, which should forestall any more {{Refimprove}}s). If the Harvard style was intentionally preferred the inline format can be undone of course, but it will probably be difficult to maintain the article in Harvard format once other editors start expanding it, since few use Harvard here instead of inline, and the article should have one or the other, not both. Sorry I irritated you. I changed the project tags' assessments above to note this as a Start- instead of Stub-class article, and to rate the importance higher in the birds project (which it should be). All that said, it is likely that someone will come along and put some other reference cleanup tag on it, probably {{Onesource}} since single-source articles are generally considered problematic, as they only reflect one viewpoint. I'm not adding it myself here now, in the interests of avoiding any further conflict with you, which isn't productive for either of us. PS: Yes, thanks for creating the article! I wish we had one on axanthism, too (which presently just redirects to its opposite, a situation I don't find very sensible). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you—the article is agreeable enough to us both now. It is nice of you to de-escalate. You have to understand that I read the commentary above in the context of the hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are demonstrably poor as articles, and then I ask myself, why must anyone feel compelled to take the time to hash out the above sentiments with regard to a short, cogent, and non-ugly article? What follows is a link to an article I created that I then let other editors have their way with—that is, without attempting to bring the editing quality back in line: Canadian Museum for Human Rights. That is what happens when the predominant method and philosophy of writing and commentary-by-template is allowed to take its course here. I want no part of it, and to the extent that I participate in wikipedia in the future, I will fight against it. Here is one of the most eloquent speakers on the problem of the current footnote frenzy: [3]. Regards, Whiskeydog (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of highly dubious "shock" stuff

I deleted this (edited a little further here too, in case it is restored):

[[Shock (medical)|Shock]] may also cause discolouration; a British ornithologist{{Who|{{subst:DATE}}}} in 1844 described a captive blackbird that molted and became pure white after being frightened by a cat.

on the basis that a claim this outlandish requires a considerably more authoritative source than an (uncited!) 168-year-old monograph, from a time period in which people frequently falsified their data and even more frequently had no real idea what was going on. It is far more likely that some underlying physiological problem was responsible for this case, and that the cat fright was simply coincidental, or at best that the stress level of the bird due to the feline encounter accelerated whatever was actually wrong with it. It is also notable that there was a general folk belief up until the early 20th century that fright, stress and shock could turn someone's hair white; it is a theme very common in gothic fiction, and it was even referenced more recently in Twin Peaks and some other modern films. Basically, this was a WP:SENSE edit. If this were plausible, there would be white animals all over the place. All of the 100+ garden-wrecking rabbits in my neighborhood would all be ghostly pale, because they are terrified of everything, all the time (including my cat, who enjoys hunting them, with a pretty good success rate for a 23-pound landwhale). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

It appears that the article albinism is occupied by the medical entry focussing on humans. The article on bird plumage has a section on abnormal plumages that covers most of the content here. Unless there is something substantial to mention here (the genetics and uniqueness of avian albinism compared to albinism in other vertebrates perhaps?), the current contents with the definition and mentions of its occurrence are already covered within plumage. That could be expanded if there is any further material and this is particularly useful since the term cannot be mentioned without clear discussion with related terms such as leucism and melanism. (see also [4]). It would be good to discuss before removing merge tags. Shyamal (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The philosophy I go by, though, and the more vital one to a volunteer project like Wikipedia--where the only reward is a little pride in one's work--is that "it is good to discuss before adding tags". Then I would have known why you did so, and I wouldn't have reverted it. Outriggr (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this merge suggestion, for the reasons given above. MeegsC | Talk 08:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You can also simply add |reason=Sentence of explanation to any tag, and use a good edit summary. Starting up new discussions on the talk page for every tagging of the article the talk page is attached to is often overkill and nonproductive. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the issues raised, but oppose the merge suggestion, and propose we reverse the merge, in effect. What should be done is that the plumage article material that is also covered at this article should be summarized over there and presented in full here (including all relevant sources), with {{Main}} linking to here from there. This is normal article development, expansion and splitting, per WP:SUMMARY. The Albinism article should also link here and also give readers a (differently-focused) compressed summary view over there, again with {{Main}} providing the connection. My usual take on such things is to try to keep summaries used with {{Main}} to one short paragraph or two at most, but not use them as just "teasers" - they should actually add to the completeness of the overview presented in the article they appear in, as if {{Main}} was not present, but not drown the reader in side-topic details, either. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of all pigment vs lack of the pigment melanin

Unresolved

 – Article still lacks clarity in this regard.

In the wikipage on Leucism, it states: "Unlike albinism, it is caused by a reduction in all types of skin pigment, not just melanin"

and also: "Some animals are white or pale because of chromatophore (pigment cell) defects, and do not lack melanin production, and have normal eyes; they are referred to as leucistic."

The article on Albinism states: "Especially in albinistic birds and reptiles, ruddy and yellow hues or other colors may be present on the entire body or in patches (as is common among pigeons), because of the presence of other pigments unaffected by albinism."

And this article combines these meanings: "A completely albino bird is the most rare, lacking any pigment in its skin, eyes, and feathers"

Can this be written more clearly? It seems like the use of 'pigment' to mean all pigment or to mean just melanin sort of wanders a bit. I'm going to post this in the talk pages of the other two articles as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.236.53 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading those talk pages, I think I will skip adding this request. 68.183.236.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC). (didn't realize i wasn't logged in) -rudyard (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It should still be fixed in this article. Whoever, does the copy editing to fix this, please update the {{Unresolved}} here to a {{Resolved}} afterward. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)