Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:45, 9 December 2008 editOnorioCatenacci (talk | contribs)372 edits Responded to Snowman's comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:42, 5 August 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,652,403 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(30 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force/Archive 2 |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force/Archive 2
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Birds}}
}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}} {{archivebox|auto=yes}}


== Please see ] ==
== Archiving of discussion ==
It may be that this article needs renaming/etc. I have posted the relevant book/journal excerpt on talk, but I am not really familiar with pigeons/etc. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How does anyone feel about archiving conversation on this talk page older than say 1 month? Just curious what the feeling would be. It's not as if we've got a mountain of discussion here so there's no rush to decide but I thought I'd start a discussion of this issue.--] (]) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:Yes. Archiving this talk page is a good idea. Do you want to set up a bot to do it?--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 09:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
::This link might help ]. Cheers,--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks Sting. I'm a little behind in my replies. I'll take a look at that link you provided and get the archiving going.--] (]) 23:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Hi Sting. As I said before so far it looks like you and me ''are'' the task force. Since we both agreed to archiving, I set up the archiving bot to archive this page every 2 months. I don't anticipate such high volumes of traffic that we'll need it archived more often but adjust it if you feel it's appropriate. You have a lot more experience with WP than I do.--] (]) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

== Pigeon equivalent of taxoboxes ==

I was thinking that it might be worth our while to work on creating template infoboxes akin to the taxoboxes for certain common pieces of information for the various breed articles. For instance a nicely formatted box something like this maybe:
{| class="wikitable" border=2
|-
|-
| Origin of Breed
| India
|-
| Breed Group
| Fancy
|-
|}

Obviously this would be done as a template and dressed up a bit but I hope my point is apparent. And, of course, the content of the box would likely be more than just area of origin and breed group.

What's everyone's opinion?--] (]) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've been wondering about info boxes for the breed articles? Perhaps something along similar lines to the dog breed articles. Example here ]. The infobox template is at ] which gives:
{{Infobox
|name = Infobox/doc
|title = Test Infobox
|image = ]
|caption = Caption for example.png

|headerstyle = background:#ccf;
|labelstyle = background:#ddf;

|header1 = Header defined alone
|label1 =
|data1 =
|header2 =
|label2 = Label defined alone
|data2 =
|header3 =
|label3 =
|data3 = Data defined alone
|header4 = All three defined (header)
|label4 = All three defined (label)
|data4 = All three defined (data)
|header5 =
|label5 = Label and data defined (label)
|data5 = Label and data defined (data)

|belowstyle = background:#ddf;
|below = Below text
}}




<nowiki>{{Infobox
|name = Infobox/doc
|title = Test Infobox
|image = ]
|caption = Caption for example.png

|headerstyle = background:#ccf;
|labelstyle = background:#ddf;

|header1 = Header defined alone
|label1 =
|data1 =
|header2 =
|label2 = Label defined alone
|data2 =
|header3 =
|label3 =
|data3 = Data defined alone
|header4 = All three defined (header)
|label4 = All three defined (label)
|data4 = All three defined (data)
|header5 =
|label5 = Label and data defined (label)
|data5 = Label and data defined (data)

|belowstyle = background:#ddf;
|below = Below text
}}</nowiki>
So could adapt what we need from that template.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 10:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
::Again, sorry--a bit behind in my replies. I think that infobox you pointed at (the ] infobox) would be a great place to start. Are there any sort of color guidelines or layout guidelines that the parent Birds Wikiproject uses for taxoboxes? I'm assuming that we should follow their general color scheme or formatting scheme (fonts etc.) unless there's a strong reason not to.--] (]) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure about colour guidelines? I think the bird "taxobox" won't suit individual pigeon breeds? I think ] is the better one to use. Probably not much use putting an info box on a stub article in any case. The info box takes up too much of the article space on a stub sized article. I've seen pages get created with just an infobox! They look terrible and are put up for AfD real quick. Probably better to only use an infobox on an article once it gets expanded. I plan to start expanding some articles eventually, but it wont happen overnight. If you want to try putting an infobox on a breed article then do so. I'll see how it looks once you're done.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I've just been searching through the breed articles and I found one that has an infobox of sorts. It's at ]. Pretty untidy looking code though. But it could give us some ideas?--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think you're right. I think this would be a good starting point. I'll look at the code more closely when I can.--] (]) 09:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

== New breed articles ==

I took some pictures at a recent show so I'm in the process of uploading to commons and then creating article stubs. Anyone please feel free to expand these articles as they are only going to be pretty basic clones at first. New ones are ] and ]. Also added a picture to the ] article.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 00:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

== Task force name ==

To be consistent with other task forces and the name of the Misplaced Pages article (]) and the Misplaced Pages category (]), this task force should be moved to ]. ] (]) 01:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:I think you mean ]? I agree with the move. Any objections?--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::I guess I should have registered my objection sooner. I wish I would have had time to comment on this. Looks as if I'm too late.
::#Actually as far as I'm concerned the article and the category should have been renamed--not the task force. "Domestic" can mean an animal native to a certain area--while "domesticated" has no such secondary meaning. Hence a passenger pigeon was a pigeon that was domestic to North America but it was never a domesticated pigeon. A ] is a pigeon that is domestic to certain parts of Africa but as far as I know is not domesticated. I trust that the distinction is apparent.
:::The article and the category are named correctly. You can take that from someone with a whole lot more experience on the subject than you. Oh, and I think the word you're looking for is endemic.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::#Maybe you could wait a little longer for consensus on an issue of this sort next time Sting? Especially considering that the suggestion came from someone not even affiliated with the task force. Maybe this change is easily reverted but it doesn't look like it. As far as I know it's hardly a minor edit and since we all "own" this task force, I would have rather waited for at least one opinion from someone else ''in the task force'' before you made the change. I think "be bold in editing" partially implies that the changes that are made are easily reverted and when they're not easily reverted one is a little less bold. --] (]) 12:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::No need to wait for consensus. The edit is easily, yes easily reverted. But you need to do it as a "move" so history is preserved. I'll only revert back again as the renaming was necessary because you got it wrong in the first place. Don't be worrying about people outside this task force having an input. If I want I can leave this task force (or put it up at AfD) and not bother with running anything by you or anyone else. No one needs to be a member of this task force before working on pigeon articles. This is Misplaced Pages. The encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::::: I did concede that the edit could be easily reversed. The phrase "Maybe this change is easily reverted" may have been somewhat ambiguous, I grant, but I thought it indicated that I understood the change could be easily undone. My objection was the fact that you took it upon yourself to make the change without really waiting for any consensus to build on the subject. That was my objection in a nutshell. And thinking about it a bit more, I suppose I didn't really have much cause to object since the "taskforce" seems to be basically you and me. So I am sorry that I let my mouth run before I properly thought things through and I hope you'll accept my apology for my nasty comments.--] (]) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Apology accepted, but I didn't really take your comments as "nasty". I guess I was just a little angry because I felt that user GregManninLB (who has over 14,000 edits) had a good suggestion. When experienced editors like that give advice it is wise to pay attention. Anyhow, I probably reacted a bit negatively, so please accept my apology also.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Oh and I didn't mark the move as a "minor" edit.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Oh hang on I get you. Still need only small letter "p" though. So ] look any better?--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:::I've been bold. Just checking redirects.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

== New breed articles ==

I've created a few more article stubs. Need expansion but it gives us a start. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] I think that's it? I'll do more tomorrow.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 13:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Do you think it would make sense in that infobox we're developing to list alternate names for breeds? I've never heard a "Runt" referred to as an "American Giant Runt" before. Not that either name is necessarily correct or incorrect; I think it might be helpful to note that there are other names for breeds. What do you think?--] (]) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, alternative names can be listed also. The American Giant Runt standard is in the Aussie standards book. It says that, "the Giant Runt was the result of USA breeders seeking a shorter typier bird." I took a picture of one at our recent show, and that is the picture used on the breed article. They are shown as American Giant Runts here and we also have "Roman Runts" but I neglected to get a picture of one of those. Maybe at the National in a couple of months time? Perhaps they only show them over there as "Giant Runts"? The ones here I believe have imported bloodlines, but I'd have to check on that to make sure. It would stand to reason that other areas use different names. The same as different places use alternative names for colors.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">]</font> ''<small>]</small>'' 12:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== Infobox for pigeon articles ==

Sting came up with a nice prototype for an infobox for pigeon articles. However there is an issue with the fact that fanciers in the US group breeds in one way, fanciers in most of Europe have a different way of grouping the breeds and fanciers in Australia have yet another set of groupings.

I posted a potential modification to the infobox like this:

Here's what I'm sort of thinking of (I'm not the world's best with templates but hopefully this will give you the idea of what I'm thinking of)

{| class="infobox vcard" style="width: 20em; font-size: 0.9em;"
|-
<!-- the name of the breed -->
| style="background-color: #D3D3A4; text-align: center; font-size: larger;" colspan="2" | '''{{{name}}}'''
<!-- if we have an image -->
|-
{{#if: {{{image|}}} |
{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" {{!}} ]{{#if: {{{image_caption|}}}|<br /><small>{{{image_caption|}}}</small>|}}
|}}
<!--conservation status-->
|- class="note"
{{#if: {{{status<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}} '''Conservation Status'''
{{!}} {{{status}}} }}
<!--alternative names one parameter, separate them by <br> if more than one-->
|- class="note"
{{#if: {{{altname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}} '''Other names'''
{{!}} {{{altname}}} }}
<!--country of origin -->
|- class="note"
{{#if: {{{country<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}} '''Country of origin'''
{{!}} {{{country}}} }}
<!--nicknames one parameter separate them by <br /> if more than one -->
|- class="note"
{{#if: {{{nickname<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}} '''Nicknames'''
{{!}} {{{nickname}}} }}
|-
| colspan="2" style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;" |
{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0"
|-
! colspan="3" style="background-color: #D3D3A4; font-size: 8pt;" | Classification
|-
<!-- Breed group -->
|- class="note"
{{#if: {{{augroup<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}} ''']'''
{{!}} {{{augroup}}} }}
|- class="note"
{{#if: {{{usgroup<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}} ''']'''
{{!}} {{{usgroup}}} }}
|- class="note"
{{#if: {{{eegroup<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |
{{!}} ''']'''
{{!}} {{{eegroup}}} }}
|-
<!-- no major poulrty organization, because it's extinct -->
{{#if:{{{extinct|}}} |
{{!}} colspan="3" {{!}}This breed of chicken is ]}}
|}
<!--
traits
-->
|-
| colspan="2" style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;" |
{| width="100%" class="collapsible collapsed" style="border-spacing: 0"
|-
! colspan="3" style="background-color: #D3D3A4; font-size: 8pt;" | Traits
|-
{{#if:{{{Crest|}}} |
{{!}}'''Crest Type'''
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}}{{{crest}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{feather|}}} |
{{!}}'''Feather Ornamentation'''
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}}{{{feather}}}}}
|}
<!--
note-->
|-
{{#if:{{{note|}}} |
! style="background-color: #D3D3A4; font-size: 8pt;" colspan="2" {{!}}Notes
{{!}}-
{{!}} colspan="3" {{!}}{{{note|}}} }}
|}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACEE}}|{{ns:0}}|]}}</includeonly>


== Writing about breeds ==
Sting--well, rather than trying to paraphrase Sting's reply, here it is:
After two new-ish editors ended up at ] in the same week for breeds-related disruptive editing (and one topic-ban was issued), I've expanded a bullet-point list of advice for them into an essay: ].


It provides a crash course in how to write about breeds the Misplaced Pages way. It's mostly for new editors, but might be of use to some more experienced ones who have not written about breeds before or thought much about how our ] apply to the topic area. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 07:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
<blockquote>
No I don't like the three groupings on the infobox Onorio. It just looks way too cluttered that way. But you do have a point with the different systems operating in different countries. I think it's a shame that there is not just one world-wide grouping syste. That is why I was hoping to just use the "arbitrary" grouping system (perhaps tweak it a bit which you did already) we have on the Fancy pigeon article. At least use it for now for simplicity sake. If any particular breed article comes into major problems by using that we can then make individual changes to suit? A US standards book? Wow that must be an old one! Hey you're in the NPA aren't you? Why don't you get together with say Steve StClair and get a new standards book up and printed? We did it here in Australia and it's in loose leaf (ring binder) format so that any additions or changes can just be printed up and added in. The US really does need to adopt a better grouping system than just Fancy, Homing and Utility. That went out with the Ark. Also I probably didn't explain my opposition to the German naming enough to you? It's not that I'm against other countries having their names for breeds in their language. My point was that this wiki we are on now is "English" Misplaced Pages. There is a seperate German Misplaced Pages, French Misplaced Pages etc. We should in fact check to see if they have corresponding articles to what we have here. The german name on the jpeg is irrelevant. If an editor ever happens to not know what a "Pfautaube" is, then I'm sure they can ask on the article talk page. I'm pretty sure they'd be smart enough to equate Pfautaube with Fantail in any case. Anyhow, I'm rambling on and have lots to do today. Not really much time to be online, but I'll see what needs doing on my watch list.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote>


== Capitalization of names of standardized breeds ==
I told Sting that I thought the discussion of the infobox should be moved to this talk page (to help give people background on why certain decisions were made, assuming we ever get anyone else working on this task force besides Sting and me) and that's where it is.
{{FYI|pointer=y}}
Please see ].


This is a neutral RfC on a question left unanswered by ] (on purpose in 2012–2014, pending "later discussion"). It is now later, and lack of resolution of the question has held up ] in draft proposal state for 6 years. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I have a few thoughts in response to Sting's reply:


== First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest ==
#I really don't think three breed groups is that much more cluttered than is one--especially if it's well identified as to which is which. But I guess that's just an aesthetic disagreement. I don't see where it's significantly more cluttered than the section immediately above it which contains four different values (Conservation Status, Other Names, Country of Origin, and Nicknames) without any sort of separator. And those four values are only tenuously connected at best where as the alternate breed groupings are essentially three facets of the same piece of information.
After all the fun with the ] last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at ]. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the ] and enter early and often. --] (]) 18:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
#I guess part of the answer as to where this information belongs depends on for whom it is that we're creating and editing these articles. If they're for the general public, then they don't care about breed groups. As far as I know, fanciers don't even care about breed groups except when it comes to picking a champion of the show. On the other hand, not including this information doesn't seem to be as complete as it could be regardless of audience and why not accommodate pigeon fanciers if it can be done without too much additional effort.
#Sting asked if I am a member of the US NPA. I am not. I had heard some discussions at one point of the US NPA adopting the EE breed groups but I don't know what ever became of that if anything. As far as "Fancy, Flying and Utility" having gone out with the Ark, as far as I know Noah only cared about the flying variety anyway. :-)
#Also in regards to the US Standards book being "old" . . .again, I'm not completely sure but I think that the standards book is being redone--right now in fact. But that is, of course, no guarantee that the breed groupings would get changed anyway. I look at the breed groupings as simply serving the practical purpose of allowing judges to pick subchampions at a show from smaller groups before picking an overall champion. A lot of the larger shows here in the US, as far as I know, simply don't even bother with picking an overall show champion because there are almost never ''true'' utility pigeons shown--who cares what a bird bred to feed people looks like--and true flying pigeons are rarely ever picked as show champions--again, who cares how they look; it's how they fly that matters.
#I think that it would be equally simple to inline a mini-infobox with the breed groups. Doesn't have to be anything super fancy--just a small template to insure consistency. I think this information is too important to fanciers not to capture and if that means capturing it in a separate infobox in the body of the article then fine. I can certainly understand aesthetic and organizational considerations but ultimately we're working to create a complete store of knowledge and breed groups are a part of that knowledge that we should be capturing.--] (]) 03:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
::Not that I would normally reply to my own comment but this may have some bearing on the discussion of how breed groups should be listed in the infobox. Sting (or anyone else that cares to comment) please take a look at the ] article or the ] article. Not that we necessarily have to conform to that, but I would say that if we list the various breed groups there is some precedent for that decision. If I'm understanding correctly I think your objection is aesthetic and that's certainly reasonable but I think we can learn something from the way that other animal hobbyists give information regarding the animals they keep.--] (]) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


== Merge Domestic Pigeon and Feral Pigeon ==
== Pigeons for identification ==


As i have talked about in their respective pages, i feel like ] has many bits of information that should be in the wild pigeon page (]) as the domesticated birds still share many of their wild behaviors. Furthermore, as feral pigeons are merely escaped/abandoned performers, i suggest splitting the content on the feral page and moving some sections to the rock dove page, and some of it to the domestic pigeon page, and redirecting the feral page to the domestic page. Alternatively, the feral pigeon page should be altered to the ] or ] standards. ] (]) 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
*1. at a show for identification; others in the flickr set. ] (]) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:I've copied this comment to ]. In general, it helps to give your rationale all in one place and just tell other editors to go look at the proposal. This way discussion stays together and participants can see the line of reasoning all in one place. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 22:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
:You might want to post this one at the ] talk page, just in case they're not watching this page... ] | ] 08:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
::I see. So i just provide them a link? ] (]) 03:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
::OK. I thought the photograph might be of interested to the pigeon task force when I first saw it. I moved from the general bird talk page to the domesticated pigeon task force talk page. ] (]) 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I saw the original posting--I do keep a watch on the Birds Project talk page. I just haven't had time to look at the photos beyond a cursory look. It can be just as hard to identify the breed of a domesticated pigeon from a picture as it is to identify the species of any other bird but I'm sure that either Sting or I will get a good look at them and see if there's anything we can use. Thanks for pointing them out Snowman.--] (]) 12:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:42, 5 August 2024

Shortcut

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBirds
WikiProject iconWikiProject Birds/Domestic pigeon task force is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird
WikiProject Birds To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please see Talk:Ukrainian Skycutter

It may be that this article needs renaming/etc. I have posted the relevant book/journal excerpt on talk, but I am not really familiar with pigeons/etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing about breeds

After two new-ish editors ended up at WP:ANI in the same week for breeds-related disruptive editing (and one topic-ban was issued), I've expanded a bullet-point list of advice for them into an essay: Misplaced Pages:Writing about breeds.

It provides a crash course in how to write about breeds the Misplaced Pages way. It's mostly for new editors, but might be of use to some more experienced ones who have not written about breeds before or thought much about how our WP:P&G apply to the topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of names of standardized breeds

FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds.

This is a neutral RfC on a question left unanswered by MOS:LIFE (on purpose in 2012–2014, pending "later discussion"). It is now later, and lack of resolution of the question has held up MOS:ORGANISMS in draft proposal state for 6 years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge Domestic Pigeon and Feral Pigeon

As i have talked about in their respective pages, i feel like feral pigeon has many bits of information that should be in the wild pigeon page (rock dove) as the domesticated birds still share many of their wild behaviors. Furthermore, as feral pigeons are merely escaped/abandoned performers, i suggest splitting the content on the feral page and moving some sections to the rock dove page, and some of it to the domestic pigeon page, and redirecting the feral page to the domestic page. Alternatively, the feral pigeon page should be altered to the street dog or street cat standards. Anthropophoca (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've copied this comment to Talk:Feral pigeon. In general, it helps to give your rationale all in one place and just tell other editors to go look at the proposal. This way discussion stays together and participants can see the line of reasoning all in one place. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I see. So i just provide them a link? Anthropophoca (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Categories: