Talk:Western house martin

message: It would be good to have a photograph of house martin. Snowman 09:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A photo has appeared.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by J7k7l7 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The article seems to be written from the point of view of someone living in a country in which its nests rather a country to which it migrates.  There is little mention of its migrant behavour.  --194.176.105.39 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says its migratory and where it winters, feel free to add more. Jimfbleak 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you misread the reference. Although headed "House Martin Delichon urbica", the text that followed said "The correct spelling of the scientific name of the House Martin is D. urbicum". A misunderstanding of the Latin meant that for many years the spelling was urbica, but the 2004 ref corrected this to urbicum which is now the correct spelling, although I suspect that it will be a long time before urbica disappears Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of January 6, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  The prose is very readable, and complies with the Manual of Style to my knowledge (I made a few MOS fixes myself). One point though, for reasons of good grammar and readability, paragraphs are usually a minimum of three sentences. There are many instances in the article where there are stand-alone single or paired sentences. I think they need some consolidation into larger paragraphs ala my edits to the introduction.
:2. Factually accurate?:  The use of references and inline citations per WP:V and the GA criteria is perfect, great work. However, I do have one question: the article mentions the bird's colonies several times. Should this at least once be specified to "breeding colonies"?
:3. Broad in coverage?:  Covers all basic points and stays on topic.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  Fair treatment for all significant points of view.
:5. Article stability?  Obviously stable.
:6. Images?:  The criteria is met here for the most part, but the description page for :Image:Bysvale.jpg and :Image:House Martin-Mindaugas Urbonas.JPG require credit given to named parties. A parenthetical credit with the names should be included in the image caption, or the images replaced. Another issue I want to bring up, which is not a pass/fail criteria, is possibly replacing the current lead (my pick is Delichon urbica NRM.jpg). I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky talk 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen comments, going away in next hour until Wednesday, will fix then, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the head's up. You've got plenty of time (till the 13th), so no hurry. VanTucky talk 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not believe the credit line in the article is a requirement. If this were really so, then every cc-by-* licensed image on wikipedia articles should include a credit line. The photographer has released it under GFDL and cc-by-sa- and the additional credit line note may well be for non-wikipedia usage. Shyamal (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (more or less) I've left a couple of short paras where joining them would involve too big a jump in meaning. The image you suggest is definitely better, I was wary about using it before because the bird was in-hand. The byvale image seems to require a commons hyperlink as well as the photographer's name - I couldn't see any way that worked of doing that within the image caption - any advice on that? Or do you agree with Shyamal? Jimfbleak (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most attribution licensed images don't include a credit because 90% of them don't specify that one be given. If none is specified, then none need be given. But for the ones that say "please credit this image to...", a credit in the caption is required. I'll do some more digging to be sure. VanTucky 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Creative Commons by Attribution licenses requires that you attribute the image - yet there is no wikipedia policy that says the attribution has to be on the article page. I would be interested to know a stated policy for what you say because if true then there should be no rule against watermarks - most of them are essentially what the photographers want to be shown along with their photographs. Shyamal (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about internal Wikipedia policy, it's about the application of the contents of the licenses. VanTucky 06:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't much mind about having the credit, the point I was really making was the technical one that if the byvale image has to have the hyperlink as well as the name, I can't see any sensible way of formatting the link within the image caption. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot to address that. The hyperlink is definitely not necessary. VanTucky 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!
:I've seen comments, going away in next hour until Wednesday, will fix then, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the head's up. You've got plenty of time (till the 13th), so no hurry. VanTucky talk 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not believe the credit line in the article is a requirement. If this were really so, then every cc-by-* licensed image on wikipedia articles should include a credit line. The photographer has released it under GFDL and cc-by-sa- and the additional credit line note may well be for non-wikipedia usage. Shyamal (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (more or less) I've left a couple of short paras where joining them would involve too big a jump in meaning. The image you suggest is definitely better, I was wary about using it before because the bird was in-hand. The byvale image seems to require a commons hyperlink as well as the photographer's name - I couldn't see any way that worked of doing that within the image caption - any advice on that? Or do you agree with Shyamal? Jimfbleak (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most attribution licensed images don't include a credit because 90% of them don't specify that one be given. If none is specified, then none need be given. But for the ones that say "please credit this image to...", a credit in the caption is required. I'll do some more digging to be sure. VanTucky 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Creative Commons by Attribution licenses requires that you attribute the image - yet there is no wikipedia policy that says the attribution has to be on the article page. I would be interested to know a stated policy for what you say because if true then there should be no rule against watermarks - most of them are essentially what the photographers want to be shown along with their photographs. Shyamal (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about internal Wikipedia policy, it's about the application of the contents of the licenses. VanTucky 06:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't much mind about having the credit, the point I was really making was the technical one that if the byvale image has to have the hyperlink as well as the name, I can't see any sensible way of formatting the link within the image caption. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I forgot to address that. The hyperlink is definitely not necessary. VanTucky 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: The first ref has the title "Northern House-martin". Is this another name for House Martin? Snowman (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of the modern made-up names, that I've never heard anyone actually use. I suppose it had better go in. Jimfbleak (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the additional/alternative names be un-hyphenated and capitalised for consistency with the article's title? --Red Sunset 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming conventions are complex.  I believe that the spellings are correct as they stand.  See the wikilinks that link to this page.  I am just wondering what the official name of the bird is. There are plenty of links using Common House-Martin and AOU uses Common House-Martin. Perhaps the name of this page should be that as well. Wikiproject birds prefers the official bird names, I understand.  With the AOU name, I believe that the Martin is capitalised because it is a true martin, but it would be helpful if a bird expert would explain more. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Point taken Snowman, but consistency issues are bound to crop up in a FAR, and as we both know, a normally-accepted "project" practise or MoS doesn't always cut the mustard! Experts please... --Red Sunset 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of Common House-Martin as opposed to Common House-martin, is, at best, highly questionable in this case, considering that this is an essentially non-American species, and arguments for maintaining the American (not European) spelling rules in its name are therefore flawed. Anyhow, I think I have expressed my opinions about this issue before (e.g. here). Yet another argument against the use of Common House-Martin is that, so far, WikiProject Birds uses the "Old World rules" (as explained here). Regardless, I have been bold and removed the hyphen from the name altogether - not only does it remove any confusion there may be over House-Martin versus House-martin, it also follows HBW, the general basis for WikiProject Birds, where they use the version without hyphen. Coincidentally, the version without hyphen is also the one recommended in Gill & Wright's Birds of the World - Recommended English Names. If anyone disagrees with this conclusion (or think I've been a bit too bold here), you should of course feel entirely free to change it back, but please do add arguments here. Rabo3 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Forgot to comment on the question actually asked on my talk page! Following the strict interpretation of the rules on WikiProject Birds, the article should be moved to Common House Martin. However, as just about everyone but the major world lists just use the shorter House Martin, I think it is fine to keep it at its current place. This is comparable to the situation for another featured article; the Blackbird. Rabo3 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bird names are clearly one of your strengths.  Is it better to be consistent and use WP:bird rules, or use the commonly used names? I think that I would choose the commonly used name too as the name of the page, and explain/provide other names in the text. I can think of one bird page which has been named with the WP:bird name rules, and a reason is given is the WP:rules, even though an alternative name is the commonly used name. Is there a new trend to use a commonly used bird name instead of following the WP:bird rules for the name of a page? As over 120 pages link here with "Common House-Martin" is it worth giving this spelling a short mention and/or explanation together with the other spellings?  Snowman (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Snowman, in response to your question: If it had been entirely up to me (which it clearly isn't), I'd move every single species to the best of the names used in one of the major World lists, as I think it generally removes the risks of "double-use" of names. Just see Yellow Oriole, where someone has come up not with one, but with two (!) entirely made-up names: South American Yellow Oriole and Australasian Yellow Oriole. Both names that aren't used *anywhere* except on wikipedia (did someone say WP:NOR?), and clearly an attempt of avoiding Green Oriole for the Australasian species. Likewise, it isn't really strange that European or US birders/ornithologists use a short version of the names when there's only one species from the group in their birding region (Blackbird, Shoveler, Night Heron, Pheasant, Wryneck, Chachalaca, Robin (x2!), etc, etc), but forcing these short name through on a place like wikipedia, where birds from all the worlds countries are included, does seem a bit narrowminded. After all, the two remaining members of the genus Delichon are also known as House Martins. Unfortunate examples like that could be avoided entirely if just sticking to names from the major World lists, but I have no intention of getting seriously involved in that discussion here on wiki, as I'm sure it could evolve into something unpleasant... and I'd much rather spend the relatively limited time I have avaible on adding info to the articles. Rabo3 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am disappointed with WP:Birds for not being consistent with their bird name rules. How can you take a rule seriously when the people that advocate it do not always use it?  I am puzzled, because it seems to me that you have contradicted yourself from above when you said House Martin was ok for the page name, or was that just for a "quiet life". Snowman (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are misunderstand me, though in fairness perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. I am relatively new to wiki project birds, and have played absolutely no part in forming the naming rules, which, in fairness, for the most part are very good, clear, and followed in most articles. My intial reply to this particular issue (House Martin versus Common House Martin) was more of a comments that if people want to keep this article at its current place, it's fine with me (I really don't feel it is important enough to start a serious discussion over it) as it is a name commonly used, though if it had been *entirely* up to me, I would have done otherwise (per my second comment). Regardless, as noted earlier, I have no intention of spending more time on this issue (unless someone asks a question clearly directed at me), and only ever added the initial comment due to the request on my talk page. Anyhow, I'll get back at doing what I really care about - adding info to articles. Rabo3 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other names 

message: What type of publication is reference 25: Weisman, Jaime (2007). "Haemoproteus Infection in Avian Species". University of Georgia.? I cannot find an article or a book with this title. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the original —  — I killed the link because it didn't go go a specific page, hadn't noticed it was a cite web. I'll look on the university website, if i can't find it, it will have to go. Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 12:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaime Weisman is one of the university staff, I can't find the document/article Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 12:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I've removed the three references above. The facts they supported have also been removed, they are fairly minor. If I do find better sources, I'll replace them Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 06:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weisman, Jaime (2007) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Common house martin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202070253/http://aulaenred.ibercaja.es/wp-content/uploads/309_HouseMartinDurbica.pdf to http://aulaenred.ibercaja.es/wp-content/uploads/309_HouseMartinDurbica.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The genus Delichon is a recent divergence from the barn swallow genus Hirundo, and its three members are similar in appearance with blue upperparts, a contrasting white-rump, and whitish underparts"
Shouldn't there be four after the split of the Siberian house martin? Also in 'Description': "D. u. lagopodum differs from the nominate race" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian 1111 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  three members