Talk:Rodrigues solitaire

Quotes
Might as well quote the few accounts at length, they're in the public domain, and most books about the bird I've read publish them in full. FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On a different note, some 19th century and early 20th century sources mention that a supposed gizzard stone of this bird is housed in Cambridge, but no later sources mention it. Anyone know what happened to it, and if it was genuine? FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FAC feedback
Could go into a little more detail on the taxonomy - i.e. on what basis the relationships have been determined (osteology/genetic etc.) Much like raphinae article, which itself could have alot more detail...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there's a little about skeletal similarities and differences to the Dodo and other pigeons in the description section, do you mean that such should be in the taxonomy section instead? The Newton brothers wrote that the Solitaire was intermediate between the Dodo and regular pigeons in anatomy, that could maybe be interesting to add there as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point (damn I didn't register that) - that material looks good where it is, maybe just skim on similarities differences in osteology only WRT classification in taxonomy....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did add some taxonomy stuff since last, don't know if it's enough, but the annoying thing is that the sources seem to compare the Solitaire to the Dodo, and then just take the Solitaire's relation to the pigeons as given through its relation with the Dodo. Something like the systematic comparison paragraph I just added to the Dodo article is probably what you had in mind, but I just can't find such in the Solitaire sources... FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Verification
Some of the in-line references to book sources to not permit easy verification, which mignt not be consistent with WP:MOS nor FA status. Examples: Snowman (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Cheke & Hume 2008, pp. 45–168. (page range is too large) Snowman (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 2. ^ a b c d Fuller 2001. (no page numbers) Snowman (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed: Fuller 2001, pp. 203–205. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. Hutchinson, G. E. (1954). "MARGINALIA". American Scientist 42 (2): 300–308. doi:10.2307/27826550. (dead link on my system today) Snowman (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if the link is dead, there is a full citation, and scientific articles don't even need links in the first place. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, again, if it wasn't brought up during two separate FACs, why should it be a problem now? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See MOS. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to anything specific? FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Verification and book citations. Snowman (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it state a page range can be "too large"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:V. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? Could you quote the relevant passage? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could someone else please chime in here? Where does the MOS state a page range can be "too large"? FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, I've now fixed the issues out of boredom. Some of the problems were created when the citer style was changed, and duplicate cites with no page numbers were made for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

New source
Joylon C. Parish (2012). "The Dodo and the Solitaire: A Natural History" ISBN 9780253000996 (see ) Sasata (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the preview, and there doesn't seem to be any "new" info, more like a review of stuff that is already present in this article. But if anything useful is found, feel free to add. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, since the FAC, a new comprehensive research paper about this bird was published (2013), and I've summarised most of that info here. The article therefore has quite a lot of new text. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Landscape
Descriptions of the landscape and trees on the island might help to explain more about the bird's environment. Leguat described the landscape in his book. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a modern source would be more appropriate for that, since most of the plants still exist. There should be something in Cheke Hume 2008. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Leguat described the island at the time when the bird lived there. He described tall trees providing a continuous overhead canopy, and I presume this is what the vegetation in the colour reconstruction is based on (and Leguat's book is mentioned in the image description on Commons). I have recently uploaded some modern holiday photographs from flickr to Commons showing a rather treeless Rodrigues landscape, which I presume gives some idea of the destruction of the forests. I had the idea that showing a modern picture of the treeless landscape would help the "Relationship with humans" or "Extinction" sections. It would also provide a little more colour (mainly green) to the article, which has mainly black and white photographs. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's not really any room left for images. And it would be a bit too synthesis-like to add info that is not directly related to the bird/not discussed in most sources about the bird. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Here is an image of the Rodrigues landscape in 2004; File:Rodrigues Island, Mauritius-17May2004 (5).jpg. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We now have an image showing the bird and a background, made by the author of this paper: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912963.2014.954569 FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Broken citation link
Error on page: "de Lozoya, A. V. (2003). "An unnoticed painting of a white Dodo". Journal of the History of Collections 15 (2): 201–210. doi:10.1093/jhc/15.2.201. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFde_Lozoya2003. edit" and footnote 8: " Lozoya & Valledor 2003. Harv error: link from #CITEREFLozoyaValledor2003 doesn't point to any citation." &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ  23:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess this means the "refnames" should be synchronised? FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a tool at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see these types of errors. I found out about it here: Help_desk.  There is still one broken link on this page, and several on the Dodo page.  I will fix them when I have a chance.  &mdash; Gaff   ταλκ  17:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I find this citation style a bit confusing, and prefer the one used on for example hoopoe starling, much simpler to use and maintain. I'd even prefer if the style here and on dodo was changed back to that... FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed on this page, will fix dodo later. Funny: I changed the citation style on the gopher article to match this page and the dodo, because I thought it was your preference & I'm still learning how to write good articles... &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ  17:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Heheh, I'd say the one used here looks better, but to me, when writing long articles, practicality comes first... The "new" style was added by a user who is now blocked, so it has been a pain to maintain it.... FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Morbid curiosity: which editor and why blocked &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ  17:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't involved, and don't really know what happened, but I guess this can give some kind of idea: FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Restoring FA citation style
I have received a request on my talk page to restore this article's citation style to the style that was in use during the article's development, until shortly after it was promoted to FA. Just after it was promoted, significant changes to the citation style were introduced, in contravention of WP:CITEVAR, and since then, the citation style has become a bit of a muddle. I propose to return the article to the original citation style, per the CITEVAR guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Feel free to ask if you have any questions about individual citations. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this was forgotten or how, ? FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I simply forgot. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to forget things. Anyway, I have restored the citation formatting per the above and cleaned it up a bit. Please check my edits and look at the diff VERY carefully; it was a lot of work, and a lot of detail, and it is quite possible that I misplaced one or more page ranges or whole citations. I recommend that each time a short citation was replaced, that you check to ensure that my change results in the same full citation being referred to.
 * If these edits look good to you, I can do the same at Dodo. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, and no problem, this article hasn't been featured on the main page yet anyway. Certainly looks like a lot of work, and the page ranges seem to match up. The only question I have is about how to treat multiple page ranges from the same source. I didn't seem to have that yet in the pre-citation style change version of this article, but what I have done since (following advice at some FACs) can be seen in for example the Broad-billed parrot article (under "Works cited"). Any thoughts on this (now different page ranges from the same books are shown with the full citations each time)? Could maybe also be solved by just giving more than one range in a single citation, such as "40-45, 130-132". Fixing dodo would of course be nice, but no rush with that, since it was TFA long ago. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:FunkMonk, I just ran across your unanswered inquiry. My understanding is that in order to avoid duplicating full citations per WP:DUPCITES, what you did in Broad-billed parrot was
 * and placed the full citation in the Cited Works section.
 * Disadvantages:
 * Plain text references mean that the full reference will not be shown when the user hovers the mouse over the short citation.
 * Automated detection of citation errors is not possible with plain text short footnotes.
 * Alternative:
 * Use the harv or sfn templates in the inline style. That is, the full citation for Hume is placed inside a ref tag with the page number declared outside of the cite book template.  You then use the sfn template for all other pages. For illustration, I edited Broad-billed parrot using the alternative I described for all the Hume2007 footnotes.  Comments?  If ok, I will change over the Chuke/Hume citations to do the same.  Otherwise, I will revert the article.  If agreeable, this by the way is how I would avoid WP:DUPCITES in the Dodo article. J JMesserly (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me if you change it in any of my FAC nominations if you encounter it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Use the harv or sfn templates in the inline style. That is, the full citation for Hume is placed inside a ref tag with the page number declared outside of the cite book template.  You then use the sfn template for all other pages. For illustration, I edited Broad-billed parrot using the alternative I described for all the Hume2007 footnotes.  Comments?  If ok, I will change over the Chuke/Hume citations to do the same.  Otherwise, I will revert the article.  If agreeable, this by the way is how I would avoid WP:DUPCITES in the Dodo article. J JMesserly (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me if you change it in any of my FAC nominations if you encounter it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Pixelated illustration
This illustration was added by, and though I appreciate the effort, the image is so pixelated as to be useless (what does it add?), especially since we already have two illustrations of higher quality. Furthermore, the image shows blue and green parts, which does not match the historical descriptions (saying it was grey and brown), a result of seemingly being derived from a photo of the Nicobar pigeon. But I am willing to discuss this, and hope others will add their opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)