Talk:Halcyornithidae

deletion

Also some very iffy stuff (London glue formation?) that reads like this may be a bit madeuuppy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing madeuppy about this article. Yeah that glue bit was a mistranslation, I meant London Clay. --DaMatriX 14:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A mistranslated from what? Perhaps you could provide the source you used for this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I translated it form an Ukrainian website. However, the presence of Precursor in the London Clay can easily be verified by a quick google search --DaMatriX 14:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought these were not the Precursor (bird).Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of the material (namely one humerus) assigned to Precursor may belong to an, yet unnamed, Halcyornithid taxon, while much of the other material probably belong to a Charadriiform bird. --DaMatriX 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Or not, that is the point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You lost me here, pal. If Precursor is not a member, then the two articles should certainly be seperate, right?? DaMatriX 15:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Err you are there one arguing they are not the same . That was your whole objection to deleting this article (whilst using a source that links them).Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that some material previously assigned to Precursor belongs within this family, does not mean that all described species of Precursor belong here. In fact, they probably don't. So I just don't agree with you. How are disputes like this usually solved on Wikipedia? I'm not well versed in all the rules and stuff.DaMatriX 15:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone will now look at the deletion, if they agree it goes if not then other discussions take place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

Halcyornithidae contains several genera, while the placement of Precursor within this family is not certain. I do not see how these two articles can be considered duplicates. --DaMatriX 14:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The point is that they are about the same creature. The fact that the identification is contested means that the article should cover both, not have two separate (and tiny) articles. Combines there is barely enough content between them for a single article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not about the same creature! Halcyornithidae is not monotypic. --DaMatriX 14:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well the two have been linked (in this article), either the "Thames clay stem parrot (Precursor (bird)" are linked. So I would argue that clearly we are dealing with a rather confuse matter in which even the sources disagree these are different. If sources claim they are related then we cannot say they are not. Thus (as I see it) we have a two articles on "Stem Parrots (Aves, Halcyornithidae) from the Green River Formation and the London clay deposits". When we should have one (renamed to that maybe).Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Allright you got a point. Perhaps merging the articles is the best course of action. DaMatriX 14:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've provided several resources and am now convinced this article should stay seperate from Precursor. DaMatriX (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)