User talk:Sabine's Sunbird/archive5


 * Archive No 1: October 2004- March 2006


 * Archive No 2: March 2006- Feb 2007


 * Archive No 3 Feb 2007- Jan 2008


 * Archive No 4 Jan 2008- Jan 2009

Birdses of paradiseses
Given the new move proposal, and your rather cogent arguments at the first one, would you be willing to outline where you think (a) the birds should be, and (b) where the dab page should be? (And if you feel up to it, where the other pages should redirect). Please? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you're probably right too. But I'm confused by too much going on. Like "bird of paradise (bird)". Ugh. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave up on the debate that NC(flora) a while ago - I'd say "wake me up if anything interested happens", but I suspect that would piss people off. :) Anyway, I just don't have it in my to care about debates on Wikipedia these days.  Writing articles is my therapy.  Arguing with people does me no good.  Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

General correspondence
aheheh.. sorry, my bad. Things will work out. thanks for your help with advice as to how to do research, it's been useful. Did you hook up "Duvaucel's gecko" with that nice shot? I see Jennifer Moore took it - she helped us out in a BIOL 132 (Conservation and Biodiversity) class one day - from memory there were like 6(possibly 8) post grads doing reptile research at vic (at least back in 2006) and they were all chicks(!?). That gives me an idea though.. as I can get in contact with this girl down south doing research on Naultinus gemmus who has taken photos... I also am in touch with a guy who lives in Wainuiomata who has over 600 animals native reptiles in cages at his house including some endangered species such as the otago Skink.. he's probably got some good shots too.. All the best Kotare (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia article naming conventions - organisms
Sabine's Sunbird, I posted a notice at WikiProject Birds about this discussion about changing the naming conventions. However, as bird editors have put together a somewhat usable common name naming policy for bird articles and might be most impacted if this policy were to change from the top down, would you please notify other interested bird editors? You have probably considered doing this already, however, to forestall discussions of vote-stacking on your part, I want to ask you specifically to do this to acknowledge the high interest in the discussion that might be held by other bird article editors. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bridled Tern
Hi Duncan, on the weekend I added some text to the Bridled Tern description, it had previously been called a 'small' tern (which I disagree with) and 'This species is unlikely to be confused with any tern apart from Sooty Tern' omitting Grey-backed. I'm sure that my addition could be refined, just wondered if you would have a look over and fix where necessary, cheers Tom. Aviceda  talk  06:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kim Sterelny
He'll be back now right? Can you get a photo or two of him? Richard001 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Albatross
I am reading the Sibley Behavior book right now, let me do some referencing. He definitely says altricial. speednat (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Question, my book does not say---are their eyes open? speednat (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He has his facts right, just the term wrong. He says "young altricial, covered with down in 2 stages; brood 28-35 days at most;etc. So I cross reference that with Ehrlich's The Birders Handbook, and semiprocial = mobile remain at nest, fed and semialtricial 1 = immobile, downy eyes open, fed. So from all this I feel semialtricial is most accurate speednat (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I re-read it and now I am not sure if semialtricial or semiprecocial is best, I guess the discerning feature is mobility. Let me know what you think speednat (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: my comment
Regarding your response to my comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)‎, you are absolutely right. Hubris got the best of me. Thanks for pointing it out. First Light (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

DYK for Scarlet Robin
 Royal broil  02:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Input
Hey Sabine, Would you mind giving me input on what I did to Light-mantled Albatross Thanks for your time. speednat (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
Sabine, I know you only know me from my edits but you seem like a level headed person, can you take a look at my talk page and the interface I am having with orlday, I am getting a bit flustered, but don't want to make a big deal Thanks speednat (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyrant flycatcher and lists of genera
I'm sorry for the mess, and glad to know of you. Pmronchi (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind last message. Thinking for a while, could a note like "The following list is sorted in taxonomic order" be added before the list? Although probably self-evident for people like you, it could help prevent people like me to contribute chaos :) and also point to us the existence of such an order (I could have added it myself, but I think it is best for you to decide) Pmronchi (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Puffin
I'm obviously not going to get into a edit war on this, but you restored text to Puffin which I had removed. The only thing the reference says about hunting is ''Historically, the Atlantic Puffin in North America was heavily persecuted for eggs, feathers, and food. Many populations suffered drastically, and major conservation initiatives were undertaken to recover populations.'' - no dates, doesn't say they are still being hunted. I suppose the most likely explanation is that you can access the subscription-only content. If so, can that be referenced to clarify this section? jimfbleak (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about "Retrieved on 1 April 2009, subscription only content."? My only concern is to avoid other editors making the same mistake as me. jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (butting in) interesting point. I guess this is what we presume with all journal sources which are abstract only online as it is ''(there it is the default, and we note "fulltext" if freely available. I guess it is not a bad idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Red-winged Blackbird
Actually, if'n you subscribe to that thar US website at Cornell, wanna check Red-winged Blackbird to see if it needed any refs or bits before going to GAN? I always felt it was nearly there and that might be just the double check needed before going off there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Duck
Whilst I can understand your frustration, please remember to take a deep breath and remain civil. jimfbleak (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the words wall, head and banging come to mind? :P MeegsC | Talk 15:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, you're not exactly a serial offender! On a totally unrelated point, I'm trying to work up Ruff, and I seem to remember that you have access to a couple of sources that I don't. There are a couple of of points you might be able to help with
 * If you can access BNA, do you know if there have been any Ruff breeding in NAm since 1976?
 * If you can access HBW, does it give any info on the scale of hunting? I know that shorebirds in general are widely hunted in parts of Asia at least, but can't get anything with a verifiable ref on the effect on this species.
 * thanks for any help you can give jimfbleak (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim: Happened to see your note, and thought I'd respond (since I have access to BNA).  There is no account for Ruff, which implies there are no breeding records (since the project has a listing for all species known to breed in North America). MeegsC | Talk 09:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Identification
Hello, While sitting in the tropical birds area in Rotterdam Zoo yesterday, I shot two photo's of a nicely coloured tropical bird (this one and this one). Unfortunately I could not find a sign with information about this particular bird. Do you happen to know this birdspecies? Is it perhaps a triller? When you do not know the answer, do you know who or where I can ask this question? Magalhães (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reaction. I will wait and see which one it is and then upload the images with a proper name to commons. Magalhães (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing Bird Articles
Just came across your excellent article today while snooping around and was very impressed... and inspired. I'm adding "take a Canadian bird species to FA" to my lengthy to-do list. Cheers Sasata (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

jackdaw
Somehow am working this up to GA - have you heard much on cladistics of Corvus? this looked interesting...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds May newsletter

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  06:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Knot
Sure, That was the only one that I could find on the net and incidentally the first one was added to WP by the author of that paper D. Buehler ! A rather interesting paper it is. I presume you have my email id from the past. Shyamal (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I subsequently added some areas based on Shorebirds (Marchant, Prater, Hayman), hope it is now more acceptable. Shyamal (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Tasmanian Native-hen
Please be careful with this. Especially when edit summaries that are not obvious vandalism are presented. Cheers, • Rabo³  • 03:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June newsletter

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pyrrhocorax rustica
..or is it Hirundo pyrrhocorax? I must be about due for a holiday (: jimfbleak (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Philomachus pugnax
Thanks for help in dealing with the comments posted so far. I was watching Ruff at Minsmere on Saturday. The males had lost the collar and face ornaments, but retained much of the colour on the body plumage, so still pretty smart for passage birds. jimfbleak (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bird taxonomy
The sources you cite are well over 50 years old - in fact two of them are from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica - the world of bird science has moved on a great deal since then. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, my initial source was "Biyoloji Terimleri Sözlüğü, 1998" published by  Turkish Language Association. For a source in English language, they were the first ones I got in google. You mean there is no order as "Coraciae" anymore? I do not think so.Obuli (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Coraciae" existed in 80s Sibley-Ahlquist_taxonomy but it seems it is still present Obuli (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to mark thie source as questionable using . Otherwise, yes, I have seen one of your additions and thought hmn, nice, can use. In some cases, it'll save us reading through all of Mr. Charles Lucien Jules Laurent Bonaparte taxonomies... ;-) (which is what Britannica11 and other such popular encyclopedias relied upon.
 * PROTIP: if it gives names of scientists or dates, add them in text to make a good citation. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Procellariiformes
This from my Talk:

heads up on buffing and polishing of Procellariiformes - figured you and SS were the best folks to make sure everything classificatory that needs to be said is said in the article. what else should go in? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For me ATM only that Pelagornithidae are not close relatives ;-) whatever they are, the cladistic analyses are quite straightforward about their similarity to albatrosses being convergence.
 * I have not yet seen the new paper by Mayr but it is rather significant to the article. The abstract will give you the basic idea already; basically we have two flight modes in tubenoses (water-treading flap-gliding vs dynamic soaring) [<- Sunbird you'll probably want to read this. Do you have access? Otherwise I might try my library.]
 * Presently I'm expanding the pelagornithids (eightfold and counting...), gonna be done by the end of the week or so. But til then, it's synonymy hell...
 * For starters, see the sources at Audubon's Shearwater and Shearwater. For the fossil record - there is not much that cannot be assigned to family, and what there is I have just put in the article. This is still about as good as any if one throws the 2009 Mayr Paleogene book and Diomedeoididae paper on top of it. Some more sources are found elsewhere on Wikipedia, see the comments in the "Taxonomy and systematics" sourcecode. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What I have added is, in a nutshell, a cursory summary of the information in the Mayr book. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

 * Newsletter delivery by –xeno talk 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aves: Linnaeus, 1758 or (Linnaeus, 1758)
Hi Sabine's Sunbird. In article Birds the authority of class is in parentheses [Aves (Linnaeus, 1758)]. This is correct? In the Code (ICZN), only binomials are specified in rules, not comment about higher taxa. There are any convention to parantheses use in higher taxa (class, order, family and genus)? Best Regards Burmeister (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Phylogeny of birds
I'm terribly sorry, my mistake! The source has nothing to do with big cats, however I copy-pasted the syntax from an earlier edit of me (on the position of the extinct cat Panthera schaubi), and I forgot to change the discription. It has been corrected by now! Thanks for bringing this error to my attention. Cheers! DaMatriX (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sooty Terns in Seabird
Oh, how interesting. Do you have a reference for that. I copied your photo and caption to pelagic zone, and then got into trouble with another editor questioning the caption. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be great if you can cite that. Do you know if there are any other birds that stay on the ocean more than one year? I see you are attending my old alma mater. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization comment and more
Very witty comment on capitalization on WT:MAMMAL. I enjoyed reading it. Personally, I favor not capitalizing the whole name since no other professional sources I know do. I have read the arguments for and against, though. Probably the bigger Pandora's box that I would love to see re-opened is the use of the scientific name (not the common name) as the article title. Using the common name in the title is not universal in WP:Tree of life, and once again, most professional scientific sources use scientific names almost exclusively. My work with the lemur pages highlights the problems with using the common names. First, for many lemur species at least 2 common names is the norm, all of which can be used throughout the literature equally (i.e. Fork-marked vs. Fork-crowned lemurs). Also, with classifications changing frequently (especially within the last few years), you get name changes where common names get swapped between scientific names. Take the example of the Red Lemur and the Red-fronted lemur. In 2008, the Red Lemur, Eulemur rufus, was split into two species, Eulemur rufus (Red Lemur) and Eulemur rufifrons (Red-fronted Lemur). Also, Eulemur rufus was previously known as the Red-fronted lemur, but was renamed the Red Lemur, while Eulemur rufifrons assumed its former name. Now that was fun to deal with. Had we only used scientific names for the aritcle titles, we simply could have noted the taxonomic change on each page, fixed some redirects, and changed the common names on each page. Anyway, again I'm sure there was a great war in ages past that settled this issue once and for all. But if you asked me, we should eliminate the extra capitalization and use scientific names for the article title (requiring all common names be listed in the opening sentence). Oh well... enough ranting. Best wishes! –Visionholder (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Huddling
Do you have any references for the huddling behaviour of bee-eaters? I have seen pictures of nearly 7 bee-eaters sitting side-by-side like this huddle of 3 http://www.indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=10081 or this one http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=119&articleID=1541 Shyamal (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also would you have access to this ? Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, I find it very useful to run google searches with "bird name" site:www.archive.org Shyamal (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi Sabine, Could you please comment regarding the lead image on Grey Fantail --Fir0002 10:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a first draft of New Zealand Fantail, let me know if I've understood correctly or not. Then all I need to do is find some good replacement photos ... :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lookup request
Hi ! Wonder if you might be able to look up Oriental White-eye on HBW. The subspecies distributions seems to be rather conflicting with Rasmussen & Anderton 2005. No urgency. Shyamal (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Barn Swallow, Sept. 3rd 2009
Thanks for not deleting something that should not be deleted in the first place! Please also explain to me how I have 'messed' up references. A good majority of people want to hear the bird they look up on wiki, and that is most probably the first thing they want to do, so I can see no reason why you should have moved it down in the article, but explaining that logic to me could change my mind. Please do. Monday0601 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for the detailed explanation! Finally a helpful user/editor! Cheers.Monday0601 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclators
I like your quote from Pizzey and Knight, and the remark from KSB that prompted it. The beauty, heritage and variety of common names is disposed of when we adopt one of them, the others are inherently OR intentionally demoted when this happens. NOR are they the 'worlds' names for these, after all, those NPOV, V, RS names are how the vernacular is resolved and defined! I know you are aware of the pitfalls; I'm not here to preach* the solution that clarifies content, encourages inclusion of facts on naming, and sucks the life from tendentious editing. (I'm aware that proposing this solution is doomed - the players have too much invested in having their personal preferences influence the 'official' english names for this faux-taxonomy - few can resist the opportunity to become a nomenclator) I'm here to thank you for recognising why all the common names are important, I hope you can influence others to include facts on them; the result in many articles is a misleading presentation of what they actually represent. Thanks for your insightful and excellent contributions to talk page discussions, I'm sure others skip through the unsupportable blather to your considered comments. Pardon my own ramblings, I'm strongly of the opinion that adopting these imperialistic, culturally bias, redundant, and pseudo-scientific nomenclatures has compromised the improvement, of a what intended to be a comprehensive and neutral presentation of the 'TOL', and turned it into a battleground of belief ... pant! — Regards, cygnis insignis 11:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC) * Although it seems I can't resist!
 * Would you mind suggesting to the project members that a move to an IOC english name should include a reference, cited and deeplinked to the relevant page.

Move requests
I had a hard time finding them all also, but I think you had them all except Turquoise-fronted Amazon. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about misclassify the Wandering Albatross page. I had read in a book that they had the largest wingspan in ratio to something, and I was trying to say that. My mistake. Barn Owl 444 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.
This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location.  Xan  dar  22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Azores Noctule
Hello! Your submission of Azores Noctule at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Pycnonotus hualon OBC link no longer valid
Hi Sabine,

Just a note. I just got my copy of the Forktail last week. I noticed that now, since it has been published since the original "news" .pdf file, that the original link is no longer active. It has now been linked to the now published Forktail edition, here:

Since I am still a relative dummy as far as the workings of wiki edits, my attempt to change it was not crowned with success. Would you mind?--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Animals
Are you still and Active participant of WikiProject Animals WP:ANIMALS ? Please let me know.  Zoo Pro  05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cocky colour
Hey this paper mentioned in C&B 2008 looks interesting, but I can't even find a summary online - (Nemesio A. Colour production and evolution in parrots. Int. J. Ornithol. 2001;4:75–102) - I'd be insanely grateful if you could find it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
The alex bot of new articles for the indonesian project shows that you have put the project tag on the talk page of a new article - on behalf of the project - thanks! SatuSuro 06:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Two minor referencing helps at Cockatoo
I wnet to the library to get a ref for the derivation of Cacatua/cacatuidae to look in HANZAB, but the library was closed. Would you have a ref handy which gives the derivation of the scientific name?

Also, I don't have anything which states the Southeastern limits in distribution of woodpeckers (Ucucha has requested this in the Cockatoo FAC - see the FAC page), so we could drop a one-liner in cockatoo stating "woodpeckers extend to..." where?

cheers Cas

Talkback
—innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Sabine&#39;s Sunbird's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Chestnut Sparrow
Can you make some comments on this page before it goes to GA review? Snowmanradio, who has been commenting on this page extensively at Talk:Chestnut Sparrow, made a request for additional comments WT:BIRD; that's what this note is about. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

At Chestnut Sparrow's talk page you said you might make a map of the Chestnut Sparrow's range. Can you also make maps of the range of the Saxaul Sparrow and Desert Sparrow? These species (I'm going to work on their pages soon) are quite little-known, and I expect the HBW has the only up to date range maps. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Noronhomys/archive1
I just replied to your comments at the Noronhomys FAC; I'm sorry for not getting back earlier. Ucucha 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Black-winged Starling DYK
While proofreading the DYK queue, I noticed your hook on the Black-winged Starling (currently in queue 2). I think it's a little misleading there to call the Bali Starling "threatened" but the Black-winged "endangered", as the Bali is actually critically endangered and threatened to me implies a lower threat than endangered (cf. Endangered Species Act categories). What about changing the "threatened" to "critically endangered"? Otherwise, it's a good hook and article, thanks! Ucucha 09:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Perhaps something like "then-threatened" would make the point more clearly? Ucucha 09:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's still potentially confusing as in U.S. ESA and perhaps other systems "endangered" and "threatened" are mutually exclusive, but we can't put too much detail in a DYK hook, so let's just keep it. Thanks for the prompt replies. Ucucha 09:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the little star! Ah, yes, I find obscure species easier myself—more motivation, less boring researching, less disruptive editors, and so on. My next GA, however, is likely to be the rather daunting subject of the House Sparrow. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Three sparrows
I'm working House Sparrow up to GA, and I've nearly completed several (minor) sections of the text, though I've only begun writing the behaviour section. Can you take a look at it and see if there is anything to suggest, as I'm expect I'll leave out some things entirely. I'm also working on Saxaul Sparrow and Russet Sparrow a little, and the latter one is mostly of GA quality, the exceptions being the lead and the description. Can you let me know how it might be improved and see if the HBW again has more information on voice, or anything? Thanks, —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Entirely forgot this: what taxonomy should Wikipedia use for the Italian Sparrow? Ask me if you need more info, or read the paper by Töpfer. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to the Italian Sparrow: it is very, very complicated. I'll explain on my talk page tomorrow or in the next week (I'm almost done reading up) and leave a note here. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied at my talk page. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And again--—innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Russet Sparrow. By the way, I think the Italian Sparrow probably should be kept as a species on Wikipedia, since the case is not entirely settled and the HBW uses this. My personal opinion is that the Italian is an ssp of the Spanish, and will eventually be recognised as such. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hildebrandt's Starling
Did James Denis Summers-Smith really write the Sturnidae entry in the HBW? I didn't know he did any research on the group or on anything besides sparrows (and tribology). Intersting birds those African starlings are, maybe I'll work on them some time, as I have the Helm guide for the family. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific papers as primary sources
Hi. I completely agree with you about this. Let me know when you start a discussion on it, and I'll be happy to chip in. SP-KP (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparrows, again
I don't mind if you're "picky" with the GA review. You seem pretty certain a bit of work will make this pass FAC, though, and that is something. I'd like to get House Sparrow to FA, but I'm not sure I can; of the others I think Spanish Sparrow and Cape Sparrow deserve FA articles most, and I'll be working on these two soon. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)