User talk:Adityavagarwal/Archives/2017/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Adityavagarwal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your GA nomination of Black stork
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black stork you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Request
Since you added it and I'm going on vacation, could you please correct the WP:NPOV issues in what you added to the black-necked grebe? Sentences advocating for conservation fail that test wholesale. We aren't trying to tell people what to believe—we are giving them the facts to decide what to believe. Also, could you use the name of the bird when referring to it? Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 13:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just kidding, I reverted your edits to the status section for being erroneous. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just logged in. :P I took the information from IUCN, and the paper it cites too, in the Conservation Actions and the Assessment information. I think there were wording issues, and I saw the notification of the NPOV issue just now. Do you think the information should have been taken from a book instead? Thanks! @RileyBugz: link Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- The source isn't the problem. The problem is how some of what you said (like saying it was switched in status in 1998, which is very misleading) was misleading and how you said stuff like "X should be done". I don't really think that conservation recommendations should really be included, unless they are novel and unexpected. And those suggestions should be made in the voice of the person who suggested it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, got it.
Would take care of that in the future. Thanks again! Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, got it.
- The source isn't the problem. The problem is how some of what you said (like saying it was switched in status in 1998, which is very misleading) was misleading and how you said stuff like "X should be done". I don't really think that conservation recommendations should really be included, unless they are novel and unexpected. And those suggestions should be made in the voice of the person who suggested it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just logged in. :P I took the information from IUCN, and the paper it cites too, in the Conservation Actions and the Assessment information. I think there were wording issues, and I saw the notification of the NPOV issue just now. Do you think the information should have been taken from a book instead? Thanks! @RileyBugz: link Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Mallard
Would you like me to email you some pictures of a book I have about the eggs so you can add the info in? If so, please email me first. Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure thing buddy! Onto it. @RileyBugz: Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- For the citation, see User:RileyBugz/Bird book citations, The Book of Eggs, and then replace the ### in the page number thing with 83. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Message was sent. Also, so the page 83 has about the eggs of mallard too? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'm saying that the page sent was page 83. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand now, my bad. Will check it out and include the details. Thanks a lot. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Riley, I added the information. It was really really required, as there was no mention of the sizes, as in contrast to most bird articles i have seen hence. Thanks a lot for that! Could you see if it looks good? Also, while I was editing brown pelican, it needs a taxonomy section. Looks like only that is left. I searched a lot, and finally found this. Linnaeus' original work. However, I do not understand the language (might be swedish, since he was a swede, though just a guess). Do you have any idea what to do? That might contain a lot on taxonomy, so I tried a lot to find the English version, but was unable to. Where do you think we could get some source? Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm almost certain that it is in Latin, as it looks Latin and all scientific work back then was in Latin. But, I don't think that you have the right page anyways, as I don't see the scientific name there. I suggest asking the reference desk for the HBW page on the brown pelican, and then checking the subspecies against the IOC birds list. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, that's a tough language too.
Also, I thought the same too initially, that the pages might not be right; however, on searching more, the same first page (p. 215) was being shown in other places too. So, I thought it would be better if I saw the English version. Yeah, would be better to ask the reference desk. Thanks a lot. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- A note on that: the linked page shows Linnaeus' original description of the genus "Pelecanus", which he treated as including frigatebirds and cormorants. This is no longer in use and only of historical interest. Also see Pelican#Etymology. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- So, could you suggest what could be added to a taxonomy section in the article? Really difficult for this species. Maybe that the earlier definition included the other birds too (frigatebirds, etc.)? Really confused on this one. @Elmidae: Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- You don't add taxonomic info from that, because there is no info about the species you want on that page. One can use HBW, although, which I think is a pretty good starting point. After that, you have to try and find relationships with other species: I suggest using Google Scholar and then typing in "brown pelican [or the scientific name, especially if there are multiple common names] phlyogeny". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- So, could you suggest what could be added to a taxonomy section in the article? Really difficult for this species. Maybe that the earlier definition included the other birds too (frigatebirds, etc.)? Really confused on this one. @Elmidae: Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- A note on that: the linked page shows Linnaeus' original description of the genus "Pelecanus", which he treated as including frigatebirds and cormorants. This is no longer in use and only of historical interest. Also see Pelican#Etymology. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, that's a tough language too.
- I'm almost certain that it is in Latin, as it looks Latin and all scientific work back then was in Latin. But, I don't think that you have the right page anyways, as I don't see the scientific name there. I suggest asking the reference desk for the HBW page on the brown pelican, and then checking the subspecies against the IOC birds list. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I understand now, my bad. Will check it out and include the details. Thanks a lot.
- Well, I'm saying that the page sent was page 83. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Message was sent. Also, so the page 83 has about the eggs of mallard too? Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- For the citation, see User:RileyBugz/Bird book citations, The Book of Eggs, and then replace the ### in the page number thing with 83. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)