User talk:Mukkakukaku/Spr-2007

tagging of articles

Hi there. While I broadly agree with the system you have listed (although I tend to generally keep orders at high rather than top, and albatrosses are a family btw) there are some examples where a certain articles are more or less important than you'd think. Particularly some species are high or mid importance for cultural (Bald Eagle, Emperor Penguin), environmental (Kakapo, Black Robin), or simple ubiquity (House Sparrow, Rock Pigeon). Most of these sorts of artciles are alrweady tagged as such. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sabine --

Yes, I agree too with what you're saying. In general, I leave articles that are already tagged as they are. (Unless it's something like Maroon-bellied Conure listed as Top). I think the only one I might have changed was Flamingo, but .... Sometimes it's hard to pick between High and Top and I made up my system to give it a bit of structure.

Feel free to change anything you don't agree with. Was there something in particular that was bothering you?

Mukk ^{» Talk «} 02:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but I might have left Barn Owl as a mid importance. But hey, be bold! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

American sparrow

I reverted your page move for the above. The convention is that species are fully capitalised, eg Belted Kingfisher, House Sparrow, Bald Eagle, but groups of birds are not except where a proper name occurs, eg kingfishers, American sparrows, eagles. Hope this helps, jimfbleak 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- Maybe I thought that American Sparrows were a species, not a grouping. Brain fart. :P Mukk ^{» Talk «} 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

tags

I appreciate what you are doing, tagging bird articles, a useful and necessary job. However, I have concerns about the number you are tagging as stub level. Few, if any, of the article have a stub tag, and most are a reasonable length. Whilst many could be expanded, they are not stubs, and imho should not be tagged as such on the article or talk pages. Thanks, jimfbleak 11:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi jimfbleak. Thanks for dropping me a line. Unfortunately, there's no template for This article about birds is a start, please help wikipedia by expanding. I feel that the distinction between stub and start is so indistinct, expecially because start is one step below B-level (which I see as being "acceptable"). Generally, if the article only consists of [what would be on a decent article] a lead paragraph, I label it a stub. Or if it's just two sentences and then a bunch of pictures/media/further reading. It's just that I really don't like labelling pages as "start class" since it's just one step down from B. Cheers. Mukkakukaku 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maroon-bellied conure

Hi, thanks for deleting my article! Especially since the article you wrote provided LESS information. I really appreciate it! Karge123 00:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karge123 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

If you read the comment I left on your userpage, Karge, you would have realized that I did not delete your article; I merged it with the existing article on the same topic. As for the information provided: if it could be verified and was not specifically about owning conures as pets, it was kept. I actually merged it and had all of your information 100% the same. It was through subsequent editing that the superfluous information was left. And since when was it your page? Either way, you're welcome. Mukkakukaku