Crow is part ofWikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page, where you can join thediscussion and see a list of open tasks.Please do notsubstitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror infilm,literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to thegeneral Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
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)[reply]
HiDanbloch: Perhaps you can help me. I find that the current wording (general grouping of larger species ofCorvus) reads a bit oddly, becoming a bit of agarden 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
