User talk:Domski3

YEEES?

avian taxonomy...
Why don't you use the "The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World (2003)" as basis for the article's taxonomy? Ohh, isn't that a nest full of cuckoos? Lets see. Essentially, the taxonomy we use on the bird article, and over the whole site, is essentially an ad-hoc one that has morphed from that used by the Handbook of the Birds of the World. That one was chosen, before I even got here, because it was available to view online, something that Howard and Moore wasn't (and as far as I am aware still isn't). HBW was fairly conservative but at least uncontroversial. In the years that have passed various editors, including myself, grew unhappy with the static and increasing obsolete list, and have bended and deviated it based on recent research. It started when albatross got pushed to a featured article and has picked up pace. Check out Passerine for an example of moving far faster than any of the big name lists. I haven't read Howard and Moore, it probably makes some good changes we haven't yet adopted, but it is a matter of enough of us bird editors getting hold of a copy, reviewing it, deciding what changes we like and making them, which simply isn't going to happen, because we are all volunteers and only have so much time to devote to this. I hope this helps. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)