User talk:Speednat/Archive/2010/Feb

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yellow-legged Tinamou
No, of course I'm not offended, although I would point out that Clements is not more accurate, in that it makes it impossible to say where the subspecies split occurs (e.g. what part of Minas Gerais is nominate and what part is zabele; we're essentially dealing with a taxon of the Caatinga region versus Serra do Mar et al Atlantic Forest). Clements also fails to mention that the nominate is present in Bahia. Regardless, I understand your unwillingness to change without a ref. and I'll add one later. The section on etymology of genus would be more suitable in the species article if the section also includes the etymology of the specific name; noctivagus means wanderer of the night, but I'll have to check the original description to see why it was considered a wanderer of the night – it's no more nocturnal than other Crypturellus. A single minor note: Group bird names (tinamous, ratites, etc) are written in lower case, except when part of a specific species (i.e. Hooded Tinamou is a species a tinamou); WP:BIRDS. Anyhow, I noticed you've been dealing with a lot of tinamou pages and do hope you'll continue, as few people are involved in adding info to the pages of all but the most famous Neotropical birds. • Rabo³  • 07:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A brief explanation on the removal of Clements as a refernce for the distribution zabele: It was just too problematic. In addition to the things noted above, it was mistakenly claimed that it is present in Espírito Santo (it isn't), the specific info given for Pernambuco ("western") was inaccurate at best (it is [was] present in most of the state, except a narrow coastal strip), and they forgot Sergipe. • Rabo³  • 07:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My main issue is that I always feel it is a bit problematic when sections that include no new info (i.e., info not already present in the article) are added. Really don't feel strongly about it though, so if you do, feel free to re-add a distribution section. As you noticed, I did change the lead to match WP:Lead better; resulting in the habitat section again. • Rabo³  • 08:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)