Talk:Softbill

Birds Low‑importance

Softbill 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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.

Definition

Oscar O Oscar, please inform us of your experience in aviculture, particularly that in Softbills and explain why you have chosen your definition of the term. Please list any references if any.

:It is not my definition of the term. I have been reverting your edits because:
You have totally replaced the entire contents of the article with your own words. Seriously, why would you completely replace the contents of an article? This is considered vandalism within the Wikipedia community.

Your article is not in Wikipedia format. Please see Wikipedia:How to edit a page.

You include no references yourself and yet you ask me for them. If you're making drastic changes to an article, you need to supply references.

Your viewpoint may be correct. But your methodology, style, and format are suspect enough for me to revert the content. I would be happy to discuss this further, Oscar 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscar-
1) You may be correct about my presentation format, however I believe accurate information is more important than the presentation. The fact that it is presentable, readible and accurate is more important in my mind than the fact that it is not broken down into subheads. I replaced the entire article simply because it was easier than correcting what was wrong with it.
2) The reason I ask for your references is because it is quite clear you are not overly familiar with the topic since you are providing inaccurate and false information to the reader, hence my reasoning for changing it to a much more accurate form. Canaries and finches for example are NOT softbills by any means, nor are any seminivorous species. Please leave accurate information in its place rather than replacing it with the opposite.
3) I have been involved in the avicultural community for over a decade, and have been breeding softbills for numerous years. My information is as close to an accurate definition as one will find as it is a combination of various sources as well as my own.
4) References:

The New Softbill Handbook Werner & Steinigeweg

The Bird Keepers Guide to Softbills David Alderton

Softbills: their care, breeding & conservation Martin Vince

Encyclopedia of Softbilled birds Dr. Matthew Vriends

Softbilled Birds Clive Roots

The Encyclopedia of Aviculture IN PRESS

Softbills.org

Now please oblige my request and provide your own.
5) Until such time as a more accurate and appropriate definition is obtained, I will replace this article back to what I had originally submitted it as and leave it to be 'formated to Wikipedia protocol' by others more familiar with web editing.

It's good that you have 10 years in the business. As you surmised, I do not know aviculture, but I do know what is expected at Wikipedia. You cannot simply, for all intents and purposes, delete an article and insert your own. If you don't care enough about Wikipedia to follow the rules, then how are we to know if you care enough to relate the facts.

Please use the proper format and insert your references into the article, and not on the Talk page. Thanks, Oscar 04:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's all take a breath here. Editwarring is not the way forward here. I am no expert in aviculture, so I'm going to go have a look. In the meantime User:Galliforme has cited references now, and plenty of them. And wikipedia does actually encourage anyone, including newcomers, to be bold. If User:Galliforme is correct then deleting incorrect material and a complete rewrite is the way forward. So lets try and stay civil while this is resolved. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - The text for the articles as entered by User:Galliforme is a copy-and paste from www.softbills.org. Please do not do this, it is a copyright violation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page is directly from Softbills.org, but since I am the copyright holder for that domain, I felt I was privilidged enough to do so. Oscar, please explain why you are still reverting this page to old and innacurate information.