Talk:Central Park mandarin duck

Formatting

@Epicgenius and BlueMoonset: weird. I think this is the first time I've started an article using primarily Visual Editor. Those are oddities introduced by the citation generator, it seems. Strange indeed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Don't worry. There's plenty of instances where VE messes up. For example, It will keep the italic/bold markup next to a ref, if you try to copy the ref. In this edit to IND Queens Boulevard Line, the markup like '''<ref name=":12" />{{Rp|51}}''' was kept, and was undetected for years. Other examples include having to write links like [[A|A's]] and inserting <nowiki /> whenever there is a mismatch in apostrophes.

I almost exclusively add content in Visual Editor now, so that's stuff you should probably look out for after making major editions using VE. epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I see someone added an infobox. I don't have a particularly strong stance on inclusion, but it seems to me that if all it does is rearrange a subset of material already covered in the first sentence, it doesn't really do its job of presenting material in an "at a glance" way. I think just having a bigger picture there is probably better... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

GAN topic

@BlueMoonset: Just FYI I left the subtopic field empty because miscellaneous seemed like the most appropriate section in this case. Wouldn't have thought a particular animal celebrity would make sense to include in "biology and medicine", but I'm also fine to defer to others on that... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, Rhododendrites, it's a mandarin duck, and ducks come under biology and medicine. It turns out Mandarin Patinkin was very useful, because being down in the Miscellaneous section it was failing to transclude, an indication that the GAN page was, for the first time, too long to successfully transclude all of the now-800+ templates on the page without running over the maximum page length generated by all those templates. It's something we've run into a number of times at DYK, but I'm not sure how GAN will be able to deal with it: I've posted to the talk page so people know that the problem exists and what it might entail. If you want, you can put it back in Miscellaneous, but it won't be seen properly until this is dealt with. (Right now, the most recent of the Warfare nominations isn't showing.) Fun times! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yikes! Thanks for the quick explanation. Like I said, I'm content to defer to you/others on this. I just wouldn't have thought to be a specific instance of an animal in with the articles about animal species. No big deal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandarin Patinkin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Sources look good and there's enough references, clear of copyvio
  • However, some of the sources don't contain what they're being used to reference, e.g. the sentence Birding and conservation organizations took advantage of the buzz to educate birdwatchers, like the Audubon Society's explanation of what to expect to see during molting season is sourced to the Audubon Society's explanation, which is a primary source for its existence and a secondary source on mandarin duck molting. The main point of the sentence is OR at the moment.
    • Hmmm. I could've sworn I remembered reading a line about that somewhere, but as I can't find it now, I've removed it. In the course of looking for this, I wound up adding a little bit elsewhere FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Refs for the duck's names don't need to be in the lead since they exist in the body
    •  Done
• Images all seem good and relevant, commons licensed
• The wikilink for meme points to the anthropological concept, and should be to Internet meme instead
  • The broader term might be more appropriate here, encompassing those passed via the internet and locally between people. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• The ring on the duck's leg is variously referred to as a ring, band, and tag, and is wikilinked to bird ringing and livestock branding. Some more consistency here would improve the article.
  •  Done
• I have no issue with the infobox, but am neutral if the discussion decides to remove it.
  • Replaced, since nobody responded on the talk page.  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• The hyphen in 2018-2019 winter should be an en-dash (i.e. 2018–19 winter)
  • I don't know how people spot these. Seems about time to have a bot that's in charge of all dashes on the project. :)  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Rhododendrites: I do have a user script (available to all on WP) that can fix dashes, so it's almost there! Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• The sentence It left before the species' mating season and despite false positive sightings and speculation that it would likely return after molting season, in September, it has not been seen as of December 2019 is a run-on and may be better understood if rewritten.
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Do we need to introduce David Barrett as a New York City birder and operator of the Manhattan Bird Alert Twitter account who had been interviewed many times in connection with the mandarin duck – it's a bit excessive and the point is lost while reading it

• Thought about that. The reason there's more information than one might think is that Barrett has been part of these stories along with the duck. The Bird Alert thing he runs means he's often a media contact in the NYC birding community, mentioned in several of the sources. NYT seemed to follow his relationship with the duck here and then later here they refer to him as "the duck's kingmaker". Does that justify some additional context? Or maybe switching to "a New York City birder the New York Times described as 'the duck's kingmaker'" instead? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm, if he's that significant in the duck's rise to fame, maybe there should be a bit more coverage of that? I know that's asking for inclusion of something more, but there seem to be the sources for it. Kingsif (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I like it. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Overall

•  On hold Well written, overall quite good, main issue with a spot of OR. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: Thanks for the review. Mostly addressed the above. Left a comment on the last item I'd like your thoughts on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks good to go. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved, as proposed. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Mandarin Patinkin → Central Park mandarin duck – WP:Commonname, "Mandarin Patinkin" has not been commonly used outside of the news site that coined it. Zhanmusi (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- but prefer just Central Park duck, which also already redirects here, as the even more common name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Apparently I created that redirect, but now I'm not so sure it should even redirect here. For the title of this article it certainly doesn't make sense. There have been lots of stories about lots of ducks in Central Park. No individual duck has achieved this kind of fame, but people write about the ducks and other birds there all the time. Even while this one was getting press attention people were writing other stories about all the other cool ducks that are in Central Park. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support original proposal. All refs seem to use the term "mandarin", so seems good to retain that. Otherwise, per nom. The current title isn't very WP:RECOGNIZEable.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Choosing a title for the article was difficult. I chose Mandarin Patinkin because it's both specific and common. It was coined by Gothamist and used in their sources (the source which covered it most), but also e.g. LA Times, Northjersey.com, channel 6, Kirkus Reviews, etc. A bunch of other sources call it "Hot Duck" but that's both less common and more easily confused. There's no clear name, so it would be either "Mandarin Patinkin" (the most common name) or a descriptive title. I don't care for the descriptive approach in this case because (a) there are other mandarin ducks in Central Park, in the zoo, as a couple of the sources point out; (b) there's just no need to. There is a name we can (and do) use, which is common enough, and avoids any current or future ambiguity (should, say, another mandarin duck get loose in the park). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support original proposal, as more descriptive of what the subject actually is. BD2412 T 20:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• My hope is that this won't be closed before anyone attempts to respond to any of the opposing argument... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I find "Mandarin Patinkin" confusing. It sounds like "Patinkin" is a kind of bird, like a kakapo or a pardalote. BD2412 T 21:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm sure Mandy would be disappointed to hear that. :) Regardless, any descriptive name will always be more ... descriptive. But the question isn't whether a proper noun immediately brings to mind a species of bird but whether it is sufficiently common and specific in the sources such that there is no need to use a clumsy descriptive title (which, apart from being unnecessary, is increasingly likely to overlap with the other mandarin ducks that live in Central Park as time goes by and this one fades from popular culture). I'll leave it at that, though. It's not a big deal -- it just seems unnecessary, especially since the proposed title already redirects here and this one is [again] common enough and entirely specific. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.