Talk:Banded broadbill

{{Edit semi-protected|Banded broadbill|answered=yes}}

Please include a superscript link to this reference "An observation of a Banded Broadbill Eurylaimus javanicus nest in Pasoh Forest Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia" by Susan D. Myers, January 1999 in the breeding section after the words "Nests have been observed being built close to the beehives of species like the Giant Honey Bee..." Here is the link https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242778744_An_observation_of_a_Banded_Broadbill_Eurylaimus_javanicus_nest_in_Pasoh_Forest_Reserve_Peninsular_Malaysia SusanDMyers (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

:File:Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

At the time of this writing, the lead sentence contains two different links together, typical broadbill family. I tried correcting it so it doesn't look like a single link, but User:AryKun reverted, stating, "two words close together doesn't really constitute SEAOFBLUE and the replacement reads very poorly".

But I have to quote the MOS:SEAOFBLUE guideline, which states, "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link". Thinker78 (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

:Thinker78, I reverted it because the proposed replacement ("typical broadbill family—Eurylaimidae—found") read poorly and linked at the second mention instead of the first one. It is just two linked words next to each other, which I really don't think is enough to constitute a sea of blue. You could remove one of the links to avoid even this, but that would remove important context for someone who doesn't know the use of family in taxonomy or someone who wants to find out more about broadbills. The last alternative is rewording to make sure that no linked words appear together, which is actually how it was before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banded_broadbill&oldid=1114074341 you tweaked it] on the rationale that broadbill is a specialist term that shouldn't be the only explainer of what it is in the first sentence.

:I'd much rather have the article go back to the "is a species of typical broadbill found" wording since it avoids all issues with SEAOFBLUE and most bird articles actually start this way (see eg Kelenken and black-breasted buttonquail, the two most recent bird FAs). In any case, the fact that it is a bird is clear from the context and mentioned three lines down, which I hope that even the most cursory reader is going to be paying attention long enough to see. AryKun (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

::@AryKun thanks for your reply. I have some comments regarding your concerns. I will address them one at a time to avoid wall of text at once.

1. "the proposed replacement [...] read poorly". This is how I modified it: "The banded broadbill (Eurylaimus javanicus) is a species of bird in the typical broadbill family{{emdash}}Eurylaimidae{{emdash}}found in Mainland Southeast Asia".

::Please expand more on your criticism if possible. I don't see how it reads poorly. I simply moved the technical family name into emdashes in a similar fashion as the alternative name of the species, which is in parenthesis.

::It is typical use of emdashes and I don't see it unduly breaking up the sentence. Although I would say that ideally a sentence does read better without punctuation that distracts the main flow of the reading. But from that to say "reads very poorly", I disagree. Thinker78 (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)