Template:Did you know nominations/Greater thornbird

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Greater thornbird, Freckle-breasted thornbird

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that the greater thornbird builds a cone-shaped nest, usually over water, while the freckle-breasted thornbird makes a gourd-shaped nest with a long entrance tunnel?

Reviewed: Eri Sasaki
Comment: Also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/John Hunt, Baron Hunt of Fawley

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

~~On it~~.

Both pages long enough and recently 5× expanded 1 2; sourced; ~~some minimal copyvio that needs to be cleaned up on both articles 1 2~~; QPQ self-admittedly incomplete and poorly done, but no harm no foul in this case since there wasn't copyvio to be found anyway; no image to discuss; hook meets minimal interest standards and is under 200 chars; hook is sourced but confuses the two birds: "bulky" is sourced describing the fbt's gourdy nest. You might even wanna go with something else. It's probably overkill to address but I am unsure—within the bounds of birdish engineering—what the difference between "conical" and "gourd-shaped" is supposed to be; presumably the narrow end of the cone also forms a longish entrance tunnel opening onto a rounded terminus. In any case, just ping me when the wording is adjusted and this should be good to go. — LlywelynII 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: Before accusing people of copyright violation, you should look at the evidence more closely. Please do so now and then you can strike your statements above. Your QPQ comment is also pretty derogatory as it is really not feasible to check sources in languages one doesn't know for copyvios. With regard to the hook, neither a cone (a pine cone or similar) nor a gourd has a clearly defined shape, but these are descriptors used by the source so it seems reasonable to use them in articles and hook. I can remove the word "bulky" from the hook if you like, but the article does give the dimensions of the greater thornbird nest as being 60 cm × 50 cm (24 in × 20 in), and bulky seems a good word to describe it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of copyright violation. There is some copied text in ~~the~~ both articles; may have been there before you got there. Send me a ping when you've cleaned it and the hook up and we'll move on. You deserved the QPQ comment, as you self-confessedly didn't even bother to run Earwig on the English-language sources. As mentioned, though, it's fine since there was nothing to find there. Unbunch your shorts, fix the problems, and let's move on. — LlywelynII 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As a sidenote, given that this is obvious WikiCup fodder, (a) it's going to be a very long year if you start in on personal complaints and grudges this early and (b) indulging yourself in doing so is one of the very few ways you can actually ensure that you don't make it to the final round, which nobody wants. You're a massive force for good around here. Assume good faith; look at the documentation for why I said what I said; and just fix the problems, which is what the Cup is there to accomplish, or (good naturedly) explain what exactly was mistaken. Your not having done the full QPQ and (sure, by innocent mistake and no problem there) mixing up which nest was described as "bulky" weren't my bad. — LlywelynII 10:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

First the WikiCup, you are very out of date here. I am not a competitor in the WikiCup and have not been for two years, but I am a judge there. Sign-ups are open now if you want to join in.

Next the QPQ. Here I was wrong. I thought that all the references were in Japanese but in fact two were in English, and I have now checked with Earwig.

Next Greater thornbird. Look at the youtube comparison in Earwig. The sentence complained of is "so the International Union for Conservation of Nature has rated its conservation status as being of "least concern"." Do you see the word Wikipedia immediately below? The bird being discussed here is the "Egyptian nightjar", so look up Egyptian nightjar in Wikipedia. Now consider the expansion I made to that article on 16 November 2016. I have used this or very similar wording in hundreds of articles I have worked on and I don't intend to change the wording in the article.

Then there is the Pinterest source where the phrases highlighted are "is a species of bird in" and "It is found in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay". The birds being talked about here are swifts not thornbirds. I did not copy either of these phrases from Pinterest into the thornbird article. Both phrases were auto-generated by Polbot in 2007 and are used in hundreds of similar articles on Wikipedia.

Next we come to Carolina Birds. The phrase again is "It is found in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay". This time the bird being described is the Unicolored Blackbird, not a thornbird. So please explain where the copyvios are before I start wasting more time explaining why the Freckle-breasted thornbird does not contain copyvios. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, I'd already run Earwig and it was ok. Still, nice of you to go back and follow up on your own as well. For my part, I do see now that they took their phrasing from us and not the other way around. Since there's no interest at all in a different hook, I'll just nix the misplaced/SYNTHy "bulky" and call this G2G. — LlywelynII 00:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)