Talk:Finch

Woodpecker finch illustration

I see nothing wrong with this illustration that I made of a woodpecker finch. I don't understand the accusation user's have made that it is a "parody" or "cartoon." I understand how it could be interpreted as "cartoony" but I assure you it was meant as an illustation. What exactly makes it "inappropriate" for this article? MB 14:46 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more obvious why this pic is unacceptable to the serious bird writers and illustrators of Wikipedia if I put up two real pics of a woodpecker finch, alongside yours .......

http://www.worldbirder.com/photo/photo.asp?PID=216 http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/lecture5/sld015.htm

Unhappily both my pics are copyright so in a few days I will have to have them deleted. But do you now understand why your most excellent piece of clip art is not suitable for serious bird pages? You drew it very well and probably took a long time over it but time spent doesn't count with Wikipedia, only accuracy and usefulness. Could I recognise the finch off your pic? No! Just look at your beak shape, it's wrong. And is the birds front yellow? No! Does it have very thick legs? No! I withdraw my silly "troublemaker" remark but not my remark that this pic just looks so very wrong on the page. Sorry but I have to say what I think.
Adrian Pingstone 16:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Alright, I have read your response, I will now delete the copyrighted images. You could have just provided a link, it would have been as effective. It's kind of upsetting that you uploaded copyrighted images to the wikipedia. MB 03:28 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please don't be upset, the only fair way to compare your drawing to the actual bird was to have them properly alongside each other. So that's what I did.
I will now ask a Sysop to delete the two pics and no harm has been done..

Here are the two URL's ........

http://www.worldbirder.com/photo/photo.asp?PID=216

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/lecture5/sld015.htm

Best Wishes,

Adrian Pingstone 08:19 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I already deleted them (I'm an admin). You really didn't have to upload them to make your point. Please don't do this again. Thanks. MB 14:18 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'll do exactly what I wish, and if proves useful to do a brief upload of a copyright pic following by a full deletion that's what I'll do! Admins do not dictate to contributors what to do, they suggest (big difference)!

Adrian Pingstone 21:04 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Maybe so, but Admin's enforce the rules that make it possible for the wikipedia to exist. One such rule, on the Wikipedia:Copyrights page states "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others." You blaitantly did this, and I asked you not to do it again. I did not tell you you couldn't do it again. I didn't request that you be banned for breaking the rules. I asked you to please not do it again. I honestly don't understand why you are being so defensive, but I am willing to let this go as a mistake or misunderstanding. I just ask that in the future, when you click the box next to "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright" you ensure that you indeed have the right to upload the file to the Wikipedia, and you aren't just clicking it to get your file uploaded. Thanks. MB 21:17 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm slowly learning the proper behaviour on Wikipedia so I apologise for my language to you recently. In future, I'll try to express my thoughts straightforwardly and honestly but without emotion. Best Wishes,

Adrian Pingstone 07:08 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No problem, miscommunication is common on the internet, and exceedingly so on Wikipedia. MB 13:54 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Burrica

The American "rosefinches" are shown as a distinct clade here on the same level as the multigeneric arid-zone clade, but are still placed in ''Carpodacus'', which as all wikipedia articles acknowledge as having been found to be quite different. Can they be given their own genus, Burrica? (this is a subgeneric name from an old AOU checklist, which according to Taxonomy in Flux is the available name for these species) At what pace does wikipedia proceed on such issues? For now I'll just add Burrica as a synonym and maybe make a note on this page, etc., etc.--Innotata 17:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

I don't know what I meant by this: see the relevant articles Innotata 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Scientific Classification?

Just wondering, but how come they are in the family "finch"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.85.146 (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

North American finches

I have recently read that as of 1929 – a long time ago – at least 62 finch species had been discovered in Nearctic North America. I think that’s not a negligible number. In the first paragraph the Southern Hemisphere, the Neotropics, the Hawaiian Islands and the Palearctic are mentioned as their home, but it might be a good idea to say something about North American finches as well, not necessarily in the introduction if you don’t consider that number of species to be important enough, but perhaps in a distribution section. --186.108.175.201 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the taxonomy is out of date; excluding introductions and rarities, there are about 16 finches in the US/Canada, and six of those also occur in Eurasia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Finch is not in class Reptilia

Hello, In the right hand illustration, Finch is shown to be in Class: Reptilia. That is not correct. Can someone please remove that classification since I am not sure how to edit it. Thank you, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4802:B930:28E9:686A:F443:95D0 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Darwin's use of finches, as mentioned here

"Originally, Darwin did not discern that all the finches were the same species..." reads the summary.

How's that? First, there are many species, not just one. Second, the Galapagos finches Darwin used to create a model of organic evolution aren't even true finches, as the Wikipedia page on them declares. Mucketymuck (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)