Talk:Crow
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Trivia Section replaced with Crows in Heraldry
[edit]RHW/Femur fixed Trivia section, now the Crows in Heraldry section.
Befriending crows
[edit]I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add about how you can befriend crows. If it can be added on another page, please suggest one to me or do it yourself. Mr moothedisastercat neo (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think this could be a good article idea, however, disclaimers should be mentioned about not being able to have crows as pets and it should probably be phrased as an article about the ways in which people have befriended crows, not as a sort of wiki-how on the subject. I do think this could be a good edition as I have not found an article to exist that touches on this subject. ~2026-63038-0 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Larger species
[edit]Hi Danbloch: Perhaps you can help me. I find that the current wording (general grouping of larger species of Corvus
) reads a bit oddly, becoming a bit of a garden path sentence. This includes the fact that 1) species is both the plural and singular construction and 2) "larger species" can have two meanings: "larger-sized types" (the intended meaning) or categories that are broader or more all-encompassing (an easy misreading). Maybe you can suggest a third wording (neither the original nor my edit) that works better. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Wolfdog. Thanks for replying. To me, "larger species" doesn't mean "categories that are broader or more all-encompassing", so I don't think there's an ambiguity that needs to be fixed, but really it doesn't matter much. Feel free to put back your wording if you like it better. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Larger species" would not be used for broader groupings. Because if it's a broader grouping is not a species. The term has particular taxonomic meaning, and any other reading is erroneous on the reader, not the wording. Unless you're meaning species that are more widespread or more numerous in population. If that was intended the wording would be similar to those. The only possibly clarifying wording would be to use "larger-sized", but that's rather redundant. oknazevad (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Blaming the reader seems to be something we work to avoid on WP. Because technical jargon abounds, we strive to make WP readable to a lay audience and can't expect readers to have degrees in biological taxonomy. I'll try "larger-sized" since there is some tentative support for that. Wolfdog (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)