Talk:Rufous-crowned sparrow

message: interesting - I'll check it in me trusty lexicon. I knew the 'blood' derivation sounded odd. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The text claims that it still has its original scientific name, but (Cassin, 1852) is in parentheses suggesting it isn't in the original genus. I'll check if I can. jimfbleak (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Nice article
*where you have two references together, eg in A. r. obscura, they should be in numerical order (how nit-picking is that?)
::I've fixed these, and also a typo (seperate -> separate)
*Do you know what the nearest relatives in its genus are? - nice to add if possible - I'll look in my sparrow book
::can't find anything in Byers
*The range in the lead to me seems over detailed and isn't just a summary of the range and distribution section as it should be. jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed some minor formatting in the refs, but gave up part way through the further reading jimfbleak (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for going through it. I finished going through the further reading section and adding the italics (or deitalicizing) for the scientific names. I agree that the range is overly specific in the intro- I'll fix it in a second. And I don't recall having read anything about placement- though in Clements the sparrow falls in taxonomic order. Would it be safe to assume that the species above and below the sparrow on a taxonomic list are its closest relations? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's normally the case; however, if there's nothing else to support the list order, might be best to leave as is. jimfbleak (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Shouldn't we have a photo here? There are abundant pictures at Flickr , so it certainly wouldn't be a problem to get one. If those vector images are being created only because there is no photo, it would certainly be easier to just request a photo at Flickr (unless there are none, and none elsewhere, in which case it's the only option). Richard001 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A new closeup picture of a bird from Texas was posted this month that we can use. I've replaced it for Shyamal's image in the taxobox and bumped the drawing down the page as it is an actual, closeup photograph of the bird. However, Shyamal's picture tends to be an average of the different subspecies, so maybe it should go in the taxobox instead of a darker subspecies. Any thoughts? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rufous-crowned sparrow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: Why not to use reliable source for size? Here is the reference to Handbook of the Birds of the World online. Length 13.5–15 cm, mass 15.2–23.3 g. Here you can discover that the species described in volume 16, page 600. That's it. Animal Diversity Web written by students.--Vicpeters (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size