Talk:Lineated woodpecker

Image question

I am not a bird expert, but someone who appears to be claims that two images on this page

• File:Lineated Woodpecker RWD2.jpg
• File:Lineated Woodpecker RWD6.jpg

are not Lineated Woodpeckers, but Crimson-crested Woodpeckers.

According to this site, one of the distinguishing differences is the white stripes coming to a V, which indicates the Crimson Crested Woodpecker rather than the Lineated Woodpecker.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting (for new visitors, there were two images of a different species, which has now been removed.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Attribution

Starting a conversation on the talk page given the complexity of the problem. It looks like a section of the article was identified as copy by Farzaneh here. Diannaa added attribution to that source since there's a compatible license.

This material was added as part of the original creation of the article by Jimfbleak. It subsequentially evolved over time here (note the original with a red crest and white lines which was soon modified to with a red crest and whitish lines here. This change and others were picked up in the copy at animalia.bio.

The animalia.bio site credits Wikipedia as a source, and most of the time they just seem to copy large chunks of our material. I'd like to remove those links as circular references as they give the impression that they're providing a reference - and they're not needed for attribution. As to providing actual references, I'd assume the original two books, but have not confirmed. Thoughts? Sam Kuru (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The overlap shown by Earwig's tool goes well beyond what was included in the original creation. Unfortunately there are no old versions of the animalia page that have been saved by the Wayback Machine. It looks like they copied from us rather than the other way around, but it can't be definitively proven using that method.

However in diffs like this one you can observe our description section growing organically — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If you compare the 2021-04-03 version of our article to the current one on animalia, they just completely copied ours - every section is a word-for-word duplicate. Our "taxonomoy" section is omitted, but the rest is a straight-up copy of organic material (including the addition of the "in the Caribbean" that was just made to the lead in that edit. Their version also includes those organic changes you noted above in 2010. It is unfortunate that their article is not cooperative with archive.org, but I don't see any way this isn't just a straight up mirror, given the fact that they credit us and use a conforming license.Sam Kuru (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the exact diff that they copied. I will remove the citation and add a backwards-copy template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)