Talk:Gadwall/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gadwall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
The image name image:gadwallfem03 seems to have caused some confusion. This is definitely an adult male, with grey plumage, buff scapulars, and black stern.
The female Gadwall is like a female Mallard, brown with darker brown tail feathers and a paler head. This male shows some yellow on the bill sides, suggesting that it is just out of eclipse or juvenile plumage. the bill will become all grey. jimfbleak 07:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gallery
I removed the gallery just now. I thought the selection of images was poor and they were available via the commons link. Then I noticed that I tried to do the same thing in April and was reverted by a very experienced editor, so I must be missing something. If the gallery is restored, I wonder if only one of the two versions of the first image might appear? Also, the quality of the second female with chicks image is so poor as to be useless, in my opinion. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- My reason for reversion is that I shouldn't have to go to a commons page to see a reasonable selection of images - I came across this on another page where the whole gallery had been deleted on the basis that you could see them elsewhere on Commons. In that case, I reverted, then edited out poor images and those showing similar plumages. I'm a great believer in the one-stop shop. In the case of this species, I agree that the images are variable/duplicated -I'll see what is worth keeping. jimfbleak 06:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- In this case, I don't think the lost images add a great deal in terms of info or quality. I'm more concerned about the principle of deleting images just because they can be viewed elsewhere. The last occasion (don't think it was you) deleted images showing different plumages and behaviour as well as admittedly surplus pics. jimfbleak 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks for taking time to look and comment. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)