Talk:Cassia crossbill

Deletion
I think this article should be deleted. Basically this is not a species of bird as the article states, but rather a subspecies of what is known in North America as red crossbill. The proposal to have it split as its own species was just rejected by the American Ornithologists' Union, and so it remains a proposal. If you see the study, you'll see it says "we recommend..." In fact, it is therefore inaccurate to have an article stating that this is a species as this hasn't been accepted, just proposed (and now rejected by at least one authority). (You'll also see the article is an orphan.) As for merging it, the main article for red crossbill (see above) already mentions the South Hills population/subspecies. One could add to that article, but it would be more a matter of adding to that article than merging this article into that one as this one has very little information. Maybe it could be a redirect (why not), but I don't know that it even deserves that. I haven't been able to find the decision and the rationale (it will appear in the journal I believe), but here is a discussion of it: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1006a&L=birdchat&P=1474

I am not sure if this should go under articles for deletion or proposed deletion. The proposed deletion article isn't clear to me as to when it should be used. MDuchek (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the text of the vote http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/2009_A_votes_web.php MDuchek (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You should bring it to AfD. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision
I did not realize it before, but the South Hills population was not currently even recognized as a subspecies from what I can tell. So, having been voted down by the AOU it is now neither a subspecies or species, according to at least that authority. It is recognized as a "type". however. So as it is, the article is inaccurate (I feel) to have an infobox describing it as a species. Can the infobox be modified to show it as a "type" instead of a species/subspecies? Regardless, it seems to me that the best solution would be for now to redirect this to the portion of the main article that describes the population. Can anyone offer a better suggestion? I would also add that at least one AOU member suggested that the population, if/when it is accepted, be called something other than "South Hills crossbill," citing the fact that the name is not very distinctive and does not fully describe the specialized nature of this population (read the vote text in the link added) so it may be that the species in the end is called something else besides South Hills crossbill. In short, I suggest a redirect to alleviate some of these concerns. Thanks! --MDuchek (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would personally be OK with all what you say, but I would wait for the people who took part to the AfD to give their opinion. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No one else has sought to weigh in. So I suggest redirect to common crossbill.  I assume untargeted redirect at this point.  --MDuchek (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The AfD closed as keep, and as such I would be wary of redirecting without contacting the other editors before. Redirecting a kept article is considered a form of deletion, and it would be bad form to boldly do that regardless of the previous discussion. We should contact them, ask their opinion and see. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Saying contact the people who weighed in?  MDuchek (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)