Talk:History of ornithology

Birds High‑importance

History of ornithology is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

High

This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Speedy deletion

Nothing in this article is not already present in Ornithology and Timeline of ornithology. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 17:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting the speedy deletion of this article. The creation of this page has been discussed here, and there are no objections to it. Also, it will soon be greatly expanded. Please see WP:DEMOLISH. —focus 17:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and totally appreciate WP:DEMOLISH, but the main ornithology page already has a very thorough section on history. Any creation of a new article will assuredly duplicate this detailed information already present. Also, just because "there's another article like it" is not a reason to create duplicate articles. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 17:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article will not be a duplicate of ornithology, as it will eventually be much more detailed and in-depth than that article. If anything, the history section in ornithology will have to be summarized and linked to this page. Again, this has already been discussed at WP:BIRD, and the consensus is that this is an important article to be created. If, however, an admin disagrees and deletes this page, I request to have it put in my userspace for expansion. —focus 17:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that this could be considered a WP:SPLIT of the ornithology article, and therefore not eligible for deletion under the CSD. —focus 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, as I did at the bird project discussion page. This page isn't even the best start for an article, but one like this should exist, and a start is a start. —innotata 00:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD tag has been removed, so I assume this matter is closed. —focus 00:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 years later, this article is still vastly outshined by Ornithology#History. It is superfluous to direct readers to this impoverished subtopic when the primary topic already surpasses it. Rather than being demolished, the house was already built. I have instituted a merge discussion here.--Animalparty-- (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

I've been thinking about how this article should be organized. Looking at some other "history of..." articles, it seems that the best way is to have chronological sections, say, for each century or time period. By this system, the current "scientific illustrations" section should be merged into the rest of the article. Thoughts? —focus 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this: this is usually done, but at least something of a thematical organisation may be desirable. —innotata 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]