User talk:Speednat/Archive/2009/Jan

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Speednat/Archive/2009, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~Richmond96 t •c 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your changes to Rhea (bird) and similar articles[edit]

Thanks for your contributions. I noticed you have changed the section names from References to Notes in Rhea (bird) and Greater Rhea. It's not customary to change the names of existing sections without strong reasons, since other articles may link directly to those sections and this will break the link. Also, once an article is established with a system of references, it's best not to change it to another style. See WP:HEAD and Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions for more details on this.

If you want to use Clement as a reference, you can format it like the other references in Greater Rhea for example, see WP:REF for info on how to do this. If not, you can add it under the 'Further reading' section, or add that section if it doesn't exist. Happy editing! Chuckiesdad 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornell.edu link is broken, so I want to point it to the wiki page for the book. Is there a problem with that. Thanks for the input on the changes to the reference, i was just trying to go woth a "norm" that I felt was more aesthetic, but I didn't know etiquette. Speednat (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good link to Cornell here. Wikilinks in the text are great, but WP:SELFPUB precludes using one Wiki article as a reference for another, so Wikilinks should not normally appear as footnote references. Regards, Chuckiesdad 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the WP:REF section and it seems to support adding the footnotes section where the reference is for specifics like the habitat and not for general reference. The way I am doing it now is a little less aesthetic and I don't see any harm in adding the footnotes section. It should not break any links and will improve readability, in particular when you mouseover the superscript numbers.speednat (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the adjustment cleaned it up and shifted the photo (it was blocking the reference #'s) and verified all links work well. I just didn't like not putting "the sources" for facts on each line and not having 6 "Clements" in the Reference section. This looks a lot better IMHO. I hope I don't step on toes. speednat (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hi and welcome, just add your name here jimfbleak (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at your helpful edits to Gadwall, and made a few minor changes to conform with WP:MOS.

Refs should immediately follow punctuation
standard mos for inch is in
try to avoid drifting from it to they
Books should have an isbn and relevant page numbers
To repeat a reference, use <ref name = "name"/> instead of <ref name = "name"></ref>
this article started in British English, so edits should conform to that variety of the language

It's worth looking at some bird FAs for examples of good practice

It's up to you, but there's something to be said for keeping just books in References, and everything else in Notes - it makes it easier to multiple-reference the same book - see Nuthatch. However, most FAs and GAs just put all the refs under a single heading - see Northern Pintail

I hope you don't mind these suggestions, jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edits to bird and ostritch[edit]

Thanks for your improvements to ostrich, but please check out WP:NOT particularly Wikpedia is not a how to (this is in regard to care of ostritch chicks). With regard to your changes to the taxoboxes of both these articles, we do not add the authority of the higher levels if they are shared. For example the monotypic family that is the Kagu; we would have an authority for the species, genus and family, since these are all included in the one species, but not Aves or Animalia. Cheers! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea[edit]

I've no good sources on Lesser Rhea, but I note that this university site still uses Pterocnemia. Perhaps it's a genuine difference of opinion, like White-eyed River Martin, whether it merits a separate genus? jimfbleak (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]