Another bird genus bid for GT, eventually I hope to get it to FT, but It will some time before I can get the lead article to FA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is straightforward. Great efforts by Jimfbleak as always. Eagerly waiting for Condor FT. - DSachan (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wouldn't hold your breath for the New World vultures; I don't have good sources, and nobody appears to be pushing the topic despite all the FAs and GAs. I don't think Condors alone will run since they are in different genera Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not named House martin if the other topic is called River martin and not Pseudochelidon? Nergaal (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to use English names where possible, and for the river martin and chough FTs that was straightforward. The problem here is that House Martin is a standard alternative name and redirect for Common House Martin (That article went through FA as House Martin, and I only recently moved it to IOC Common House Martin when I realised the potential for confusion). If you Google "house martin", you will get thousands of hits for the species, not the genus. Delichon is clearcut, whereas I suspect that if I'd used the English name I'd have comments pointing out the ambiguity. For many genera there is no simple English name - see kite where any genus level FT would have to use the scientific name. It's pure chance that the first two bird FT/GTs had a convenient unambiguous English name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move Delichon to "House Martin (genus)" then? Nergaal (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that format is an absolute last resort when there is no sensible English or scientific name, as with Kite above. If there is a clear consensus to change the name of the Delichon article I'll do so, but many bird articles are written under the scientific name where there is no English name. I've raised your suggestion here for feedback Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the green range goes off the right margin of this map: File:Delichonnepalensemap.png, so I think it needs amending. The range looks a bit like a wobbly green line to me - can this be improved in the next version? Snowman (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The range actually finishes pretty well at that point, so I felt that rather than use a poorer base map I'd stick with India. I take the point though, and I'll have another go when I get time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like the poor presentation of this map to go out in the FT book. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, map replaced. It's bound to be a fairly crude representation of the range (wobbly green line) since species in the Himalayas just aren't mapped to the detail that you might get in western europe, and the boundaries may be uncertain. Do you have a more detailed source than Angela Turner or Pam Rasmussen's books? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the original map file as a duplicate for deletion on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reasons to doubt your references. Would you like me to even out some of the irregularities in the margins of the green area? I do not know how many people would interpret a wobbly line on a map to indicate an uncertain boundary. The article does not say anything about a uncertain poorly mapped-out range anywhere near the map that I could see, so perhaps this could be added to the map caption and image description. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent> If you can make it look better, that would be good, thanks. I'll clarify the caption. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have evened out the border between the green zone and grey zones, and this amended version is uploaded over the top of your second version at File:Delichonnepalense2.png. I do not think that it is perfect, but I think it is acceptable for the FT book. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think I've addressed the comments made, please note that if there is anything else needs doing before it can be promoted, I'll be away for two weeks from tomorrow. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - And note that both Orton and Dumas will be in two GTs if this is promoted (which will almost double that figure, it is currently at three)note I reviewed Amy Dumas for GA just over two years ago-MBK004 05:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
