Talk:Bird/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

(this was posted on tetrachromacy as well) I don't really know much about bird gender and genetics, but I was wondering, if the possibility of tetrachromacy is reserved for human women, not men, is it the same in other animals and insects. In the case of birds, this would seemingly add another dimension to the high sexual dimorphism, specifically, male plummage. Now that their finding even more difference that were previously undetectable in the human spectrum of sight in birds feathers, are these differences specifically developed because of a difference between female and male sight in birds.

Birds are tetrachromatic having cones for the red, green, blue and UV regions of the spectrum. As far as I am aware there is no widespread sexual difference in colour perception in birds. The signals you dexcribe that they can percieve but we can't are UV in nature but are used for signalling to both species. I'll amend the article to include mention of tetrachromacy. An interesting subject we allude to without directly mentioning. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate all the efforts SP-KP has made in putting all those citation needed notes into the article, I wonder if s/he isn't going a bit over the top. The FA "rule" is at least one citation per paragraph. Most sections are now asking for a citation per sentence, with some sentences flagged as needing three or four (or more)! According to the FA candidate suggestions, those statements which are most likely to be challenged are the ones that should be cited. I would take that to mean statements like "The Red-billed Quelea is the most numerous bird in the world" rather than "The avian ear lacks external pinnae but is covered by feathers"! At what point is having every sentence footnoted (often multiple times) more distracting than helpful? MeegsC | Talk 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it has gotten excessive. There are over 160 works cited already! Many of the tags placed in here are requesting citations when the citation already exists, on the next sentence or the one preceding. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I appear to have caused some irritation - sorry about that. What prompted the citation tags was that there are some parts of the text (the anatomy section in particular) which seemed to be very light on citations, so I started to add { { cn } } tags but it proved quite difficult to find a sensible dividing line between statements which needed tagging and those which didn't, so I opted for tagging everything except the very obvious. I've no objection at all if you feel that some of the think I've tagged don't need a reference - all I'm really trying to do is ensure that the question of whether a statement needs referencing is actively considered. I've not worked with you before MeegsC, but from the above you sound reasonable, and Sabine's - you know by now, I hope, that I have high opinions of your editorial abilities. I'm happy to go with your judgment. I've got about midway through - I'll try to find a more appropriate threshold with the remainder of the article. Regarding tags where the citation already exists elsewhere, I take your point - but in most cases where I did this, the "elsewhere" wasn't obvious (to me at least) - can we not use multiple links to the same footnote in these situations? SP-KP 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen multiple FAC where over citing has caused objections - for example saying The Guatemalan Gull of Paradise is a bird^[1] which is found in Guatemala. Guatemalan Gulls of Paradise are members of the genus Larusgullus,^[1] and are considered endangered species.^[1] If the paragraph is about a single thing (such as the lung system) a single ref should be able top cover a simple and uncontroversial topic - and doesn't need to be repeated on each sentence. I'll remove instances where I know the ref is already covered, though maybe later as I am dying of flu.

I also don't think it is needed to cite every example - for example when stating that honeyeaters, hummingbirds and lorikeets are all nectar eaters and vultures, kites and gulls are all scavengers, you don't need to cite for each one I think, it is too trivial - not to mention verging on obvious that honeyeaters eat nectar and vultures eat carrion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have cited using general texts many of the citation requested spots, in other cases they were covered by an existing citation in the previous or past footnote. The important thing here is that it is concepts that need citation, not individual examples. Where, in the past, I have cited examples it is as a reference for the concept, not the example. For that reason I have also taken down the citation needed tags in captions for images, these are simply illustrations of the concepts covered and cited in the text. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

General texts as references are fine IMO. While I agree that citing concepts is a higher priority than citing each example, I still feel that ideally all except non-trivial facts in an article should be cited - my view is that the biggest criticism of Wikipedia is that it's editing model leads to unreliability, and that our best weapon in countering that is to ensure everything, everywhere, is referenced. I think I'm probably a bit of a fundamentalist on this! Regarding the images, although I'd prefer to see a ref given in the caption, it's not a big deal - if the ref can be found easily in the nearby text. SP-KP 06:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not soft on references! But having written and referenced a great deal of this article, perhaps I simply have a better idea of what ref covers what. There are certainly many instances where you tagged legitimate omissions. But the fact that a South Polar Skua is a generalist is fairly trivial in an article on all birds (it would not be in the article on the species). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We use both (as noted in the peer review). We should probably pick one and go with it. The Wikipedia article is at

In Britain, the term used amongst birders in my experience is bill; beak is regarded more as a word used by "the public", a bit like seagull. HBW seems to use bill exclusively (someone will now find an example where it doesn't, I'm sure!) SP-KP 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I took this in China years ago if we want pix rather than just images.

Is it fact or opinion that a birds wings are "modified" fore-limbs? Source if fact?

Surely a fact - the bones are the same as in a mammalian arm, just different proportions to support the flight feathers. Jimfbleak 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there no way to put the Portal:birds icon/link/tag at the top of this page without messing up the formatting? Every way I tried bumps the taxobox down, causing the first lines of text to flow over it. It seems wrong to have it buried down in the bottom with the "external" links. Don't we want to direct as much traffic that way as possible? Fredwerner 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the white space to the right of the table of contents should be used. Perhaps a vertical format of the Bird links box used at the bottom could make use of this space and provide a link to the portal as well. Shyamal 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pulling these out until I or someone else can find some supporting citations for them.

In many birds, half of the brain falls asleep or awakens when the opposite eyelid is closed or opened. Opposite eyelids are involved due to decussation of the optic nerves at the optic chiasm. Avian sleep is so closely associated with eyelid closure that it is assumed that the eyelids "close only in sleep," and that "blinking" is a good behavioral indication of sleep.

When sleeping the lower eyelids are raised.

If you can cite them reliably (I'm trying wherever possible to avoid some guy's geocites page) feel free to reinclude them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the last bit is legit. "The upper eyelid moves little and a bird usually closes its eye by drawing up the lower lid." Wing, Leonard W. 1956. Natural History of Birds. The Ronald Press Company. p. 77. Shyamal 16:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a site for the other bits—[1] MeegsC | Talk 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to the original paper, published in the Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews: here. I found it a week ago, but haven't had a chance to add the information. MeegsC | Talk 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that Bird reproduction points here I think some mention should be made of the fact that in birds the heterogametic sex is the female (ZW) and the homogametic sex is the male; the male donates a Z chromosome and the ovum is either Z or W; this is the reverse of the XY system that humans and other mammals use. Additionally, the section labelled "Anatomy" includes general biology (including facts about the operation of the bird kidney, presence of creatine rather than creatinine in waste matter, nucleated red blood cells). Perhaps anatomy should be within a more general biology section which can address these issues (blood cell, kidney function, and major biological differences between birds and other animals, as anatomy is a facet of biology rather than the reverse. --198.103.172.9 20:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good points, I think the ZW system used to be mentioned in older versions. Perhaps it could be included in relation to the evolution of polyandrous mating systems. [2]. A physiology section or main article appears to be increasingly needed. The concern now is to keep the reference citations in check. Hopefully Gill or other already cited works has the same info and can be used as a source. Shyamal 04:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Added this to the article, I agree it needed to be mentioned. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mention the jerky motion of birds and other reptiles, e.g., head jerking all around to look here and there, except snakes, who have smooth motion. Jidanni (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you'd find a reference to that effect. I have seen plenty of non-jerky birds (and a great deal of ones that would neither really be described as jerky or smooth), and plenty of small mammals have jerking movements for the matter. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Birds, like mammals, have two sexes, male and female...

-umm why mammals, aren't all vertebrates - infact, what level of animals can we go down to...? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a comparison with mammals throughout the article. I left them in, but why is it mammals that birds are being compared against and not, say, reptiles or vertebrates as a whole (though obviously there is some of that)? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just guessing that perhaps the intention was to note that there are no cases of parthenogenesis unlike in the reptiles. Shyamal (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I feel much edified :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• "The basal divergence from the remaining Neognathes was that the Galloanserae, the superorder containing the Anseriformes (ducks, geese, swans and screamers) and the Galliformes (the pheasants, grouse, and their allies, together with the mound builders and the guans and their allies)."
  • I think we have a word missing somewhere here.

Circeus (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a tad ungainly but makes sense - 'was' is the verb in the main clause, and 'containing' as a participle/adjective thing in the subordinate bit. Could do with a tweak though cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be "was that of the Galloanserae" or "was the Galloanserae", no? Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(slaps hand on forehead) d'oh! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The first moult (or centripetal moult), as termed for the moult of tail feathers, is seen in the Phasianidae.
  • This sentence is definitely missing a fragment, especially given what follows: "The second or centrifugal moult is seen [...]" I think it has to do with the patterns of moulting decribe just above, but the added sentence about losing all the feathers causes confusion. Possibly this part could lose some stuff to simplify the structure? Circeus (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely some mutation - the first and second refers to the earlier mentioned kinds of moulting - not ordering/chronology of moults. Shyamal (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Roosting sites are often chosen with regard to thermoregulation and safety."
  • This sentence is partly redundant with the one that precede it ("Communal roosting is common because it lowers the loss of body heat and decreases the risks associated with predators.") Circeus (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Birds do not have sweat glands, but they may cool themselves by moving to shade, standing in water, panting, increasing their surface area, fluttering their throat or by using special behaviours like urohidrosis to cool themselves."
  • This seems slightly out of place under "Perching and roosting". Part of the problem seems to be the lack of a good section about biology, forcing this and similar info to be interspersed wherever possible. Circeus (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that was my fault. I found it hard to reorganize some material here but felt that it did vaguely link with thermoregulation stuff and thus better there than stuck out on its own. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• "These multi-species flocks are usually composed of small numbers of many species, which increases the benefits of numbers but reduces potential competition for resources." small numbers of many species sounds funny (many species with few individuals each perhaps?), and does it really increase the benefit of numbers, rather than just give the benefit of numbers? Narayanese (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Birds, however over much debate, are NOT the most diverse land vertebra. There has been much debate and some still refuse to believe this, but it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.210.152 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article used to say "Birds and their diversity have therefore been considered good indicators of an ecosystem's health and, in the United Kingdom, are used as one of the 15 quality of life indicators." (cited to Gregory RD, Noble D, Field R, Marchant J, Raven M, Gibbons DW (2003). "Using birds as indicators of biodiversity. Ornis Hung. 12–13: 11–24. PDF.) The article itself, however, says: "In the case of UK farmland, declines in bird populations have been mirrored by declines in populations of many specialised invertebrates and plants, declines driven mostly by similar changes in land use (Donald 1998, Sotherton & Self 2000). Whether birds can act as bio-indicators in other ecosystems and in other situations is less clear. In some, perhaps rare, cases, population gains among birds could reflect habitat degradation e.g. mild eutrophication, rather than any genuine improvement in habitat quality. This reinforces the need to be cautious in promoting birds as indicators of other wildlife." The new UK govt publication from 2004 is here: http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/progress/indicators/qolc04.htm, but I think this should be left out as well.

Please see section 3.4 at

Removed. That definitely wasn't there when I went through the article. Circeus (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the source given for: "All modern birds lie within the subclass Neornithes, which is divided into two superorders: the Paleognathae, containing mostly flightless birds like ostriches, and the wildly diverse Neognathae, containing all other birds." and it gives "cohort" rank to these two taxa, not superorder rank. Do we have another source which treats these as superorders, or shall I change this (I'm wary of any non-trivial edits to the article, given the endless review & revision it has already gone through!) SP-KP (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:4444hhhh changed the taxobox image (which was a featured image) with a composite image of several bird species; I changed it back since the image was too large (and wide) and to my mind of insufficient quality to warrant being in the taxobox of our most important article. However I want to know what people think should be the image that represents all of the class. We've had two featured images in the taxobox for most of the time I've edited the article, the fairy-wren and the wood warbler, would a smaller composite image be better, perhaps one that was long rather than wide so it didn't distort the taxobox, or should we continue to cycle through featured bird images, of which there are an decent number? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like cycling through featured bird images - composites make the actual pictures too small to be of much value in the taxobox. I especially like this beauty here:

Corvus coronoides _talk 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that 4444hhhh's idea has potential, though I too would like to see it both vertical and having fewer images. I think that it works pretty well at the plant article, though those are a bit small. While I don't have the techinical know-how, I'd suggest a vertical composite with good pictures of a heron-like bird, a hawk/eagle/New World Vulture bird, a duck/goose, a seabird (gull/pelagic/pelican/cormorant), and a passerine, either the fairy wren or yellow warbler that has been previously used. This I think would give a pretty wide range of body types and hopefully would contain few enough images to still be of a reasonable size. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the black borders between the images help in the plant article, and that good images would have to be chosen. That said, my personal preference is for a single image. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this here because it is overly specialised in what is a general article. It needs adding to either the Archaeopteryx or origin of birds articles.

Archaeopteryx is so often assumed to be an ancestral bird that it has seemed almost heretical to suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, several authors have done so.^[2] Lowe (1935) ^[3]and Thulborn (1984) ^[4] questioned whether Archaeopteryx truly was the first bird. They suggested that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups. Kurzanov (1987) suggested that Avimimus was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than Archaeopteryx.^[5]Barsbold (1983)^[6] and Zweers&Vanden Berge (1998)^[7] noted that many maniraptoran lineages are extremely birdlike, and suggested that different groups of birds may have descended from different dinosaur ancestors.

Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I have found the word 'ancestor' wrongly typed as 'ancetsor' in the article. I have no login to edit. Can anyone edit it to the right word?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.78.221 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed the spelling. Do register yourself. Shyamal (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The continual attempts to incorporate clade names to define the group "birds" in the lead perhaps needs discussion. I have reverted the latest edits and note that the evolutionary history section deals sufficiently with the dinosaurian origins. Calling birds as dinosaurs seems to be main emphasis of User:Westvoja. By that token humans could be called Synapsida. A cladogram of aves showing the other groups may perhaps solve the matter, although this is dealt with in the other linked articles like avialae. Shyamal (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the lead today and wondering when the lines about their dinosaur ancestry were removed. There used to be a line about it on the first paragraph, can't recall when it got taken away or why. I think I'll restore it, the evolution of birds is important and should be in the intro. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the sentence: the highest bird diversity occurs in tropical regions, which may result from higher speciation rates in the tropics or greater extinction rates at higher latitudes and the source following it: [3]. It seems to me that Higher speciation rates in the tropics don't correspond to the information from the abstract: The time to divergence for sister species is shorter at high latitudes and longer in the tropics. Birth-death models fitting these data estimate that the highest recent speciation and extinction rates occur at high latitudes and decline toward the tropics, or do I misunderstand something? (not-a-native-speaker;-) Domski3 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an unfortunate choice of sources. The next sentence in the abstract reads These results conflict with the prevailing view that links high tropical diversity to elevated tropical speciation rates and that view is, I assume, what the Wiki editor really meant to highlight. Unfortunately, he/she would have done better to have chosen a source which supported that "prevailing" view! : ) MeegsC | Talk 19:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. Sister species would also share common guilds/niches and therefore tend to be in competition. The tropics also have higher within guild diversity. I have attempted a rewording to clarify that the paper did find that speciation rates in the tropics were actually lower. Please revisit the wording that was based on [4] and not the original paper (inaccessible). Shyamal (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, next question: in that section, the sentence: Aquatic birds generally feed by fishing, plant eating, and piracy or kleptoparasitism. What is the difference between piracy and kleptoparasitism? Or is this just meant to describe piracy like or in other words..., giving a scientific term? I need it for translation;-) Domski3 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is slightly redundant so yeah, kleptoparasitism is just the more correct term, piracy the term you'd used if you were talking to a non-scientist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be more aceptable about birds being dinosaurs. Birds are treated like mammals and have evolved from their reptilian counterparts, but birds are not mammals. Bird classification is so confusing that they have two, Aves (birds) and Avialae (Birds under the superorder: Dinosauria). So it is just as important to understand birds as dinosaurs as well as it consurns other dinosaur groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Birds Temporal range: 160  Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N ↓ Late Jurassic – Recent
Double-crested Cormorant , Phalacrocorax auritus
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukarya
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Subphylum:	Vertebrata
(unranked)	Archosauria
(unranked)	Coelurosauria
Class:	Aves Linnaeus , 1758
Orders
About two dozen - see section below
Synonyms
Avialae

Perhaps something like this would be an improvement? (added avialae as synonym and inserted a random dinosaur clade into the classification) But I find the article rather clear about birds being dinos and not mammals, and don't see a problem with the current version – dinos are mentioned plenty in it even though they're long dead. Narayanese (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, have you noticed that the intro (are bipedal, warm-blooded, vertebrate animals that lay eggs) sounds like a general description of theropods ;) Narayanese (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, yes birds are considered a subclade of dinosaurs under the

cladistic system of classification. There are other,s and editors here appear to be confusing and combing them completely at random. Here's Westvoja's proposed intro line: " (class Aves, and clade Avialae under superorder: Dinosauria)". Class and superorder are ranks in the traditional system of classification, which allows paraphyletic groups. In this system Class can not fall under superorder. Avialae does not exist in the traditonal system, but Aves exists in both. The clade Aves is a member of the clade Dinosauria, but the class Aves is not a member of the superorder Dinosauria. The clade Aves and the clade Avialae are two different things and even the definitions for those differ from author to author. Attempting to integrate all this into the basic identity of "bird" for the sake of this article is pretty foolish right now. Maybe in 20 or 30 years when definitions sort themselves out and if one classification system completely wipes out the other. But right now it's intensely POV. For now, discussing the fact that under certain definitions birds are dinosaurs in one of the subsections, or even a single line with cite to this effect in the intro, should be fine for now and get the point across without being needlessly confusing. Dinoguy2 (talk

) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

To my mind the intro is not the place for confusing questions about avian taxonomy and nomenclature. It is sufficient, in the lead, to state that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sabine. The lead should summarize the article not provide taxonomic details on birds. Joelito (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead should declare that the present article primarily deals with the Neornithes. Since we know nothing about the distribution or behaviour of the other groups.

. The interpretation of clade labels with words of common usage can lead to major misunderstandings. Given that fossil evidence is open to open interpretation - it is best to retain the least controversial part and leave the parts that are still under debate. Is Dinosaur = Dinosauria ? Maybe User:Westvoja's confusion lies there. A certain amount of epoch-centricism is needed for readers to relate to the higher level groups like birds, fish, reptiles etc., otherwise it is easy to mis-interpret cladistic hypotheses and create a mess of words. Shyamal (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there's an article dealing with

Neornithes. I think this article is fine the way it is, but maybe some of the behavior sections should be couched in language that makes it clear the generalizations there apply to modern birds, not Archaeopteryx etc. Dinoguy2 (talk

) 08:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Avian Dinosaur", they only exist in the textbooks. See "Did Dinosaurs Evolve to Birds?" for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article crashes my browser every now and again due to, I believe, its size. Several of the sections have separate or main articles. Would there be any consensus to trim down some of the sections that have additional information in separate articles? Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. Believe me, I tried to keep it as trim as possible but the fact is that this is a huge subject, and needed massive referencing to keep the citation-fanatics happy, which accounts for a fair sized chunk of its size. Any meaningful reduction would need to include the removal of multiple references which would jeopardize its FA status. Are you sure it's size? Do you have the same problem with say, dinosaur, evolution or any of the other massive FAs? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has eight "main articles" and is 114 KB - that was why I brought it up. I was not considering the FA aspect, although #4 on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria states it should not go into unnecessary detail. It's all subjective, though, so I was just seeing what others were thinking. I didn't see anything about a minimum number of references for an FA, just as long as it is "Factually accurate". :) --Old Hoss (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed no minimum number of references. However during the peer reviews and FAC process several editors liberally sprinkled fact tags throughout the article which I had to either make a call as to ignore or cite as requested. As for unnecessary detail, well, to my mind it is a rather light treatment of the order, especially the human interactions. Massive aspects of their biology and importance get single paragraphs or even lines. I strove for comprehensiveness and conciseness when writing and editing it, condensing whole chapters of books into just a few lines. I understand it is long by WP standards, I just don't think it can be reduced without damaging the article's completeness, cohesiveness and readability. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)