Talk:Liberian greenbul
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Loopy30 in topic Oops - apparently it doesn't exist.
Oops - apparently it doesn't exist.
editI have amended accordingly with reference. Springnuts (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely merge into the other green bull article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, merge. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Don't merge. This bird has its own story line, which should be developed by expanding this article, not by putting it into some kind of subordinate position in another article. WHY did scientists think this was a separate species? What happened to dissuade them? This little nonexistent bird, like the phoenix, will probably be immortal. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nice try, but it's a merge from me. Springnuts (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and place Liberian greenbul story in a paragraph on the icterine greenbul page. IOC will catch up in time if this is verified to be correct. Does anyone have a link to the actual research paper referred to by the newspaper quoted? Loopy30 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Don't Merge! The Wikipedia standard for taxonomy is the IOC World Bird List, which does state uncertain taxonomic status of this bird but nevertheless states that it is its own species. To place a whole species as just a paragraph under another is misleading and irrelevant. There are many bird pages with less information than this one, it just needs trimmed up a little bit. Both IUCN and the HBW Alive cite this bird as its own species, and as such it should remain having its own page. If ever bird with only a tidbit of facts about it was merged with another then it would be a mess. Also, it is 'greenbul', not 'green bull' Mr./Mrs. Smallbones. Rynchops niger 1998 talk 18:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and place Liberian greenbul story in a paragraph on the icterine greenbul page. IOC will catch up in time if this is verified to be correct. Does anyone have a link to the actual research paper referred to by the newspaper quoted? Loopy30 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Merged as per IOC 8.1 and changed to redirect page. Loopy30 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nice try, but it's a merge from me. Springnuts (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Don't merge. This bird has its own story line, which should be developed by expanding this article, not by putting it into some kind of subordinate position in another article. WHY did scientists think this was a separate species? What happened to dissuade them? This little nonexistent bird, like the phoenix, will probably be immortal. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)