Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scope

Dose the project include wild pigeons, pigeon post, or anything to do with doves? Perhaps the scope should be relevant to both Doves and Pigeons, in which case the taskforce would need a different name. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinions of course.

• Wild pigeons: no--there are articles for the various species of wild pigeons and this would definitely fall outside of the scope of domesticated pigeons. Domesticated pigeons in this context means birds derived from C. livia.If you're talking about feral pigeons then yes, I would say that that would fall within this scope but I think there's already a GA article covering that topic.

• Just because there is already a page, does not necessarily mean that it is not within the scope. I thought that wild pigeons (the nearest species only) might be included, because of the genetic similarities and origins of domesticated pigeons, which did not spring-up out of the blue. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is my point Snowmanradio; there is only one ancestral bird for all domesticated pigeons C. Livia. C. Livia is the nearest species and there's already a GA article on that subject. Certainly there are hundreds of other species of pigeons and doves but domesticated pigeons only refers to birds that all trace back to a common C. Livia ancestor. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding you?--Onorio (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pigeon post: yes, there would be an article on this I suppose.

• Also "Dickin Medal", "War time pigeon post". Snowman (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both excellent suggestions. Cher Ami would also seem to fall within this purview as would GI Joe.--Onorio (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Doves: no--doves are related but different birds. This would be similar to saying a Parrot task force should include budgies and parakeets because they're related birds. They're all psittacines but they are different birds. I guess I would just see the scope as being sufficiently broad when you just consider domesticated pigeons. There are hundreds of breeds of domesticated pigeons and therefore a need for hundreds of articles just to cover the breeds alone--all that without discussing domesticated doves.

Excellent observation and excellent question, Snowmanradio.--Onorio (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I have been thinking that there should be a "Parrot" task force to include all parrots, big and small, over 300 species. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not be flippant but what's stopping you from simply creating such a task force? I mean, create it and if you're the only one interested in it then so be it. But I bet you'd find others that are interested in working on it too. I wanted to help with the Cockatiel article but it seems to me that it's mostly in need of citations and I have no reference books for those birds.--Onorio (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The topic is too small probably. I have tested the support for WP:Aviculture and there is not quite enough support yet. Back to WP:Pigeons; there are several pigeon pages in Category:Aviculture and Category:Domestic pigeons. I had anticipated that WP:Pigeons would become part of WP:Aviculture, and a number of pigeon editors had expressed an interest in WP:Aviculture. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason it couldn't be when you create WP:Aviculture? I don't know if there's anything stopping it from moving under that umbrella if we all feel it's appropriate. I have to say Sting made a good point to me about the word aviculture tending to refer to hookbills and cage birds rather than all domesticated birds. Maybe aviculture should have a broader definition but it doesn't seem to right now. And that might be a consideration if an Aviculture WikiProject were to get started. For right now, I think it's better to have a Domesticated Pigeons task force and maybe have it be slightly less than optimal than wait for a perfect Aviculture/Domesticated Pigeons WikiProject hierarchy that may never come to pass. Make a small, imperfect start. --Onorio (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Project banner

Should there be a project banner to put on the talk pages? Snowman (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We can get by with the {{BirdTalk}} template for now. I personally don't think we are big enough to become a separate wikiproject yet? When we eventually become a wikiproject then yes a banner would be good. No need to add articles to a task force category as that is better utilized as a user cat. Existing pigeon cats are suitable for our purposes.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Breed Standards

Sting and I already discussed this but just to put it here where it really belongs--when creating articles about the various breeds of domesticated pigeons, do not include breed standards. We decided this for three reasons:

1. The material in question is under copyright
2. Breed standards can vary between pigeon organizations
3. This is an encyclopedia and breed standards don't really have a proper place here.

Sting, feel free to correct me if I'm remembering wrong. As I said, I just thought this discussion belongs here rather than on our user talk pages.

Also, Sting, do you think this should be part of the user instructions on the task force page? --Onorio (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Just edit out any standards from pigeon breed articles. A lot of the stubs were started off with blank standards that are invisible unless in edit mode. I've been deleting them as I come across them again.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should add that a summary of a breed standard would be ok if an editor thinks an article requires it. Basically like any other article on Wikipedia it is consensus that decides what stays and goes. Disputed articles can wind up at AfD and there usually consensus decides the articles fate. Our biggest problem with our breed articles is the likelihood of editors (non-pigeon fans) deciding the subject is not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. I've been trying to reference breed articles as I get around to it. News reports of any big pigeon shows are important references for us. If you ever spot any news items on pigeons or pigeon exhibiting etc. Try and work them into an article or two.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus of task force

Do you all (Sting and Abbott) think it would be appropriate to focus our efforts on getting one article that falls within the scope of this project worked up to at least GA standards? I'm thinking either Pigeon keeping or Pigeon racing. I agree with Sting's prior assessment that Pigeon keeping needs work before we should even submit it for peer review. I think the section on commercial pigeon keeping is the area most in need of work; once that's a bit tighter I think it would be ok to submit the article for peer review--no doubt we'll get more things to work on out of the peer review but until that one section is a bit tighter I wouldn't even consider submitting the article for peer review. I would say we could get rid of it altogether but I really do think it's important that we at least make mention of the fact that pigeon keeping is not just a hobby pursuit.

I confess I'm a bit less familiar with Pigeon racing even though I tried to punch up the introductory paragraphs a bit. I'll try to take a look again at this article and see which portions of it need work and also look at the comments from the prior review to see what we can do from there. So do you all think we should focus on one of these two articles to punch them up for GA review or another article altogether or just go on about working whatever we care to work on? --Onorio (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about some of the wording you have used in the Pigeon racing article. Where you have, "Pigeon racing is a sport involving the release of specially trained racing pigeons, which then return to their homes over a carefully measured distance. The time it takes the animal to cover the specified distance is measured and the animals' rate of travel is calculated and compared with all of the other pigeons in the race to determine which animal returned at the highest rate of speed." I think this would look/read better as a shortened version as say, "Pigeon racing is a sport involving the release of trained racing pigeons, which return to their homes over a measured distance. The time it takes the animal to cover the distance is measured and the animals' rate of travel is compared with the other pigeons in the race to determine which animal returned the fastest." That way the lead stays as a summary and more can be covered later in the article under appropriate sections. I've moved a paragraph up as it follows on better with the mention of velocity. The (now) third paragragh could be trimmed up a lot also in my opinion.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to shorten it Sting. I think you already did shorten it up but I can't remember right now. I mean, sincerely, if I can improve something by simplifying it I usually go ahead and edit and if I've got something wrong, someone else can edit it right later on. How many times have you caught WP:MOS errors in things I've edited? I appreciate having someone with such a strong knowledge of WP conventions looking over my shoulder to make sure I don't go astray.

The edits in the (now) third paragraph could probably stand some work--I agree. Basically I was correcting the old paragraph which was incorrect. Pigeon racing was not invented in Belgium in the 19th century. Modern pigeon racing, with the clock and other paraphernalia was invented in Belgium in the 19th century. So, yes, if you can think of a better way to word that third paragraph, help yourself. I just knew that what was there before was incorrect.--Onorio (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)