Jump to content

Talk:Bird/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Galloanserae

Just wanted to let you know that I've started Galloanserae under the former "disambig" (which wasn't really a disambig but rather a stub with some disambig stuff) fowl. Because that's what they are. Galloanserae now redirects there. Dysmorodrepanis 04:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

News

Recently, in both Austin, Texas and Australia, birds have fell out of the sky dead. In the US, the CDC and HAZMAT personnel had them dissected to determine cause of death. Seen this on FOX News, other news outlets. If anything verifiable is found, can it be placed in the article ? Martial Law 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only worthy of inclusion once they have determined what killed them. It will probably be a week for them to find out what went wrong in Esperence, Western Australia. The two are most likely not linked, so it would be wrong to link them. There were an estimated 5000 deaths in Australia, and about 60 in US. --liquidGhoul 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Penis

It seems that the only birds who have penis are found among the most primitive groups of birds; Ratites and Galloanseri. Is it possible that their penis is something they have inherited from their early ancestors, instead of being secondary evolved? "Most birds lack penises altogether, and they are found mainly in ratites and ducks, yet both of the cladograms below show that the ancestral bird most likely had one." (http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/penis_evolution/) If that's the case, it could mean that Neognathes (with the exception of Galloanseri) can be defined as having a common ancestor who had lost tis penis. 193.217.195.30 18:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Aves as a Subclass

I read on another board that Aves is no longer a class but rather considered a subclass or something od the reptilia. The paper that supposedly set this is:

Gauthier, J. 1986. Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. In K. Padian (ed.), The origin of birds and the evolution of flight, pp. 1–55, California Academy of Science, San Francisco.

I do not know where to find this report. Can someone look into this?24.83.178.11 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)BeeSier

Various people, especially during the early days of cladistics in the 1980s, have attempted to restructure the traditional Linnean classes to accomodate phylogenetic concepts (the current setup among reptiles that we use here on Wikipedia, with Class Sauropsida and Class Synapsida, etc, is a recent example of this, since it follows Benton, 2004's scheme). I know at least Bakker, in Dinosaur Heresies, and Paul in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, have put forward a setup where dinosaurs and birds are grouped together in one class seperate from reptiles, either Archosauria or Dinosauria, with Aves as a subclass. I haven't seen Aves ranked as a subclass of Reptilia, but I'm sure it's been done at some point. I don't see much of that kind of thing generally accepted today, but almost no paleontological literature uses ranks anymore anyway, and ornithologists are far too stubborn to demote Class Aves anyway ;) Dinoguy2 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some interest in raising this article to featured status, from its present good article classification. Looking at the content, I think there needs to be a bit more in reproduction (notably courtship and care of young); bird song and communication; morphology,physiology and anatomy (notably plumage and flightlessness)-anatomy good otherwise; distribution; migration; and a cleanup of birds and man. More references need to be cited.......I'm going to spend some time working on courtship (for this article!!!!!) Anyone have other ideas on what we need to raise this to featured article?????????...........Pmeleski 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted an archived to do list last year Talk:Bird/Archive02#To do list. Not much has changed since then. If you're really interested in doing this I'm prepared to help, I was kind of daunted last year by the ammount of work that was needed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the archive info and the help. I'll take my time making changes as I move forward. Its nice hitting the college libraries again, feels like Im back at college, even if its only for short visits.............Pmeleski 13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To do list

  • There is no information on bird behaviour other than nesting. Sections needed for bird feeding, migration, predator avoidance etc, combined with breeding section under behaviour banner.
  • Ecology section needed.
  • Changing nesting to breeding.
  • Evolution section needs to be split into own article, then a condensed summary placed here per MOS Wikipedia:Summary style. Bird evolution is currently a redirect to Paleornithology, so it can simply be un-redirected.
  • Expand the bird anatomy section to be better summary of separate article per MOS.
  • Inline cites. It's going to need a lot of them.
  • Birds and humans + Threats to birds needs to be one section (called relationship with humans) with three subsections - aviculture and domestication (+hunting) - role in culture - threats and conservation.
  • Images need to be rationalised. At the moment there are lots of pretty pictures that don't kink to the text. We have enough images on wikipedia and commons to chose good images that illustrate points made in the text, rather than just prettifying the article.
  • Get rid of trivia section, all the points there should be incorporated into expanded article.
  • Get rid of see also. Using a navbox and expanding the article should provide homes for most of the links, otherwise simply getting rid of them. Laundry lists are not FAish.

I reposted it as a guide. Add to it as apporpriate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to create a Bird evolution article, you might want to take a look at Dinosaur-bird connection and Feathered dinosaurs -- some, or possibly most, of the information in those articles could be merged in to form a substantial part of a Bird evolution page. Dinoguy2 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Update

I've broken the breeding section into the subsections it needs. I'll work on expanding and referencing this section. It occurs that two extra sections are needed; Distribution and range doesn't belong with conservation and should be moved to its own section, and Communication is also needed, incl;using info on bird calls, song, displays etc. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also needs a diet section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

I've been adding some images that illustrate points made in the text (rather than just pretty pictures of birds). I'm trying to have a wide range of different bird types from as wide a geograpohic range as possible (most of our featured images are from North America, Europe and Australia). Suggest some other images here.... we really need some Asian images and maybe another South American.Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoatzin is a good candidate from South America - specially since the chicks have claws, a picture of a climbing baby Hoatzin would be excellent if we can get one. Mistyschism 08:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy section

The post by Marco Polo at the bottom of the page I think highlights another issue with how we want to present taxonomic info. At present the fact that the traditional is on the page and Sibley and more recent developments isn't and instead linked off somewhere is an issue. I think a page on Taxonomy of birds is a good idea with an overview of traditional and newer developments and arguments surrounding it is a great one (like we've done on Wikiproject Banksia). Question is how much. (eg the classical 28 order list).cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving section

I'm thinking of moving the section Bird#Bird orders to the bottom of the page, the same way that many bird pages have the species lists at the bottom of the article (like albatross), which prevents the article from getting too broken up in the early sections. The tow to sections, higher order taxonomy (which can jst be renamed taxonomy ) and evolution would stay at the top and complement each other. Any objections? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me......Pmeleski 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually. I changed my mind once I rearanged the section to merge evolution and taxonomy. I think it looks okay now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it a problem that in the Bird orders section there is inconsistency between the list and the chart because the former uses Clements and the latter Sibley-Ahlquist, so that in the list Craciformes is not mentioned? Maias 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Feathers

Should there be more information on feathers/plumage, since they are one of the main features that differentiates birds from other groups? Hey jude, don't let me down 00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. The whole article is a balancing act of trying to be comprehensive without making the article way too long. There is probably a few more lines that can be added (about growth and structure), but there is already a decent main article on feathers and and expandable one on plumage. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I was just wondering. Hey jude, don't let me down 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

External anatomy illustration

The illustration in the Bird anatomy section, Image:Bird.parts.jpg can perhaps be replaced by an SVG diagram or a suitably labelled photograph. Shyamal 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some alternate illustrations. It is hard to include all features unless one invents a really grotesque bird with many features. I will also try to make some in flight bird illustration with details of feather naming. Perhaps will also try to add some illustrations on bird morphometric measurements, wingpoints etc., but those can go into other articles. Please let me know your suggestions for improving these images. Shyamal 08:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggested legend in commons
    Suggested legend in commons
  • Suggested legend in commons
    Suggested legend in commons

Coverage of taxonomy very confusing!

It would be extremely helpful if someone would simply present the taxonomy currently backed by a scientific consensus instead of presenting alternative taxonomies, neither of which is fully accepted by the current consensus. The discussion of various taxonomies proposed and the objections to each of them could be exported from the main article into a linked article for those who are interested in such matters. I read the article on the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy after reading that the traditional classification had been questioned. In the linked article, I learned that the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy had been questioned as well, but that some kind of consensus had emerged. However, neither article reveals the details of that consensus. Presumably one would have to read every article on every subclade of the Neognaths to know exactly how it is currently classified. Why not scrap the traditional taxonomy if it is no longer accepted, or consign it to a linked article, along with the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy as originally proposed? Why not simply provide the currently accepted taxonomy for readers who are seeking that? Thank you! Marco polo 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree we have to sort this out. I have posted a note in the to-do list. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration Task Lisk

Please add to or discuss this list. This is what i feel is still needed before we can take this to peer review.

  • Taxonomy still needs some work.
  • Distribution - perhaps some more points of the extremes of bird ranges as well as general trends in distribution.
  • Anatomy needs some more cites
  • Maybe a little on the structure of feathers?
  • Clean up feeding a little. Maybe add some other examples, for example tool use by New Caledonian Crows.
  • Change Communication to Communication and social behaviour, cover flocking, roosting, and other group activities.
  • Breeding needs major changes at the start - get ruid of courtship (mostly covered in communication), blend rest into mating systems. Better explanation of the different breeding systems and the fact that many species are flexible - also cover mating infidelity.
  • relationships with humans needs citing. Role in culture needs massive clean up.

This article is looking very good at the moment but isn't FA yet. It doubtless could use numerous eyes to pick over wording and language usage. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what we're trying to say in the introduction, where one sentence ends " ...including cooperative hunting and breeding, flocking." Should there perhaps be an "and" in there somewhere, or did someone have further things to add and get interrupted?! MeegsC 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Galloanserae using Clade template

The following is a possible (editable and maintainable) replacement for the galloanserae tree image. Shyamal 08:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Much clearer Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont know how to have this placed in a box out of the way of text. I have misused the userboxtop and userboxbottom to achieve the box on the right which looks ok on Mozilla Firefox. Shyamal 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tweaking LEAD

Hey all, do you think bipedal is superfluous in first sentence as most laypeople would only think of them as having two legs anyway? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?=

In the box summary that most zoology articles seem to have i notice "Fossil range: Late Medieval - Recent". Also "Kingdom: plantae". I know almost nothing about biology so someone who does should check the whole thing out carefully. I probably wouldn't notice more subtle problems. 198.142.5.35 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Adaptations

I just noticed that the usual clichéd bird feet and beak adaptations are not covered here or in any of the linked articles or have I missed it. Shyamal 05:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this spelled wrong?

Hi, Wikipedia,

I don't know much but on the section Behaviour, is n't Behaviour spelled wrong? I mean, isn't it sopposed to be spelled Behavior? Well, just checking. I lllllllllooooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvve your facts about animals!!!!!!!


Michelle Seo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.112.2.181 (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm glad you like the facts. And to answer your question, the article is in Commonwealth English rather than American English, so behaviour is spelt right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Culture

I've completely rewritten the culture bit. Its no longer a name check of popular culture items involving birds but an analysis of birds and humans through the ages. I'd be grateful for some thoughtful looks at more popular culture and birds - I have a article in the Film Journal on Hitchcock's The Birds but would like more. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost in translation

Hello,

I am currently trying to translate this article for the Afrikaans Wikipedia version, but have run into a spot of trouble, seeing as how I simply do not understand the following bit: (I might seem ignorant, but please bear with me)

Phylogenetically, Aves is commonly defined as all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of modern birds (a specific modern bird species like Passer domesticus for the purposes of phylogenetic taxonomy), and Archaeopteryx lithographica. Archaeopteryx, from the Kimmeridgian stage of the Late Jurassic (some 155-150 million years ago), is the earliest known bird under this definition.

Concerning the first sentence, does this mean that Aves is defined as:

  • all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of modern birds and
  • all desecendants of Archaeopteryx lithographica?

OR does it mean that

  • all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of modern birds and
  • this selection also includes Archaeopteryx lithographica? (And in this case, doesn't the definition contradict itself?)

The bit in brackets ("a specific modern...") seems to be a qualifier for the phrase "modern birds", but I honestly can't even begin to guess what it might mean. Is the common ancestor a specific bird species? If so, how can it be one like Passer domesticus, i.e. what makes this species so like the specific one? Aarrggghhh!

Can anyone throw some light on the subject, please? Anrie 07:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Phylogenetic nomenclature basically names branching points on the family tree of life. The common ancestor of modern birds and Archaeopteryx means the one species that gave rise to both Archie and Passer, and whatver else might have stemmed from that particular point. The part in brackets just means that some definitions say "modern birds", and some use a specific species that is representative of modern birds (like Passer, the sparrow). If I were to re-phrase this for clarity, maybe something like...
In phylogenetic nomenclature, Aves is commonly defined as all animals that evolved from the most recent common ancestor shared by Archaeopteryx lithographica and Passer domesticus (the modern house sparrow, a prototypical modern bird).
...Would be better? Oh, and in "like Passer domesticus", "like" is being used as a synonym for "such as" or "for example". Vulture gryphus is also often used in the definition. Dinoguy2 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. It does make a little more sense now, although I'm still confused by the giving of an example, since this insinuates that there are some birds which don't share the same common ancestor, and, if this is the case, shouldn't it be mentioned explicitly?
Just for clarity, we are also saying "common ancestor", even though Archie is the earliest known bird? Therefore we are referring to an unknown ancestor, right? Anrie 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed line on moults

  • I took out the following line to discuss it, we can put it back if need be but I want to see what people think...
  • The females of some species of hornbills show an exceptional complete simultaneous moult, losing all their feathers while they brood their eggs, sealed inside a hollow and fed by the males.

According to Mills MSL, Boix-Hinzen C, Du Plessis MA (2005) "Live or let live: life-history decisions of the breeding female Monteiro's Hornbill Tockus monteiri" Ibis 147 (1): 48-56 ; There are two unusual attributes of Tockus biology that are of particular interest here....Secondly, she undergoes a complete and simultaneous moult of all flight feathers at the commencement of laying, 4–11 days after entering the nest. I assume that this is what the line in the article was refering too, and it can probably go back in, but the hornbills aren't the only birds to have complete flight feather moults, ducks and some other waterbirds do too. Should this be revised and go back in or should it just o in the hornbill article? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the content. Ducks go through a complete moult of the flight feathers. From what I understand the Hornbill females lose ALL their feathers. But this is from ageing memory. Would encourage those with sources to check. (Does someone have Kemp, A.C. 2001. Family Bucerotidae (Hornbills). Pp. 436-523 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., & Sargatal, J., eds. Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 3. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.) Shyamal 06:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll check the libray tomorrow, we have it there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Also do check on the general moulting strategies and patterns of phylogeny. Is there sexual dimorphism in moulting strategies in other families ? Shyamal 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • According to HBW6, (p452), many hornbill females do lose all their flight feathers at once -- typically rectrices first, then remiges. They do NOT, however, lose every feather on their bodies at once to become completely naked. This moult is not completely uniform, by the way. Some individuals of larger species don't undergo a total loss of feathers, which enables them to survive if they have to abandon their nesting attempt (which could happen if the male dies, or food supplies fail, or something like that). Females who've lost all their flight feathers typically die in those instances. MeegsC | Talk 12:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. So there is essentially no difference from the ducks/geese case of "complete simultaneous" moult. The section should primarily outline the diversity of moult types and strategies. The next part is also incomplete, which is the diversity of pterylosis. Different tract topographies by family. Is there a good family wise treatment of this somewhere? Shyamal 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Locking?

Can't we put a lock on this article, so that anonymous accounts can't edit it? That might save us having to revert it QUITE so many times each day... MeegsC | Talk 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll do it, don't know how long it will last though jimfbleak 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

removed line

Many species choose safe roosting sites, including those in the vicinity of human settlements, on open water (ducks), on chosen roost trees, on the ground or in hollows (woodpeckers). - It seems from what I can see that roosting sites are often chosen with reagrd to thermoregulation, with safety being a secondary concern; so I changed the line and cited. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I also removed a very dubious line about lorikeets roosting upside down. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I added most of that. The first few changes seem fair, although in tropical areas thermoregulation is more likely to be secondary, but let me look out for refs. Regarding Lorikeet Loriculus spp. which are also called Hanging-parrots, most bird books give this information.
"...of parrots of the genus Loriculus that sleep in tight clusters head downward"link

Actually their claws are longer than those of most members of the parrot family, which may all be part of the curious habit from which they get their name. This consists of roosting hanging upside down, with fluffed-out feathers, from a thin twiggy perch instead of sitting on it in the normal manner! To do this they would obviously need particularly long claws to interlock and clutch the perch firmly while they are asleep—or at any rate that seems to me the most likely explanation of what one might call their "naturally" overgrown claws.

— http://www.parrotpicture.net/parrotpicture05.php

Shyamal 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kay, well, I assumed it was dubious as I could find not a single reference to it. I guess it could probably go back in. As for the thermoregulation contra safety, all the refs I can find relate to thermoregulation, which still matters in the tropics (it can get very cold outside the forests), but we can re emphasise the safety bit if we have some refs (I'm fairly sure that they roost together for safety too). Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I am going to nominate this for a peer review soon. Apart from a few citations and some wording issues in a few places, the most important remaining fix needed is the orders in taxonomy and evolution (as mentioned above). Apart from that I think we're good to go. Unlike Common Raven I think the sheer size of this requires numerous pairs of eyes that you only get from a peer review. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are we aiming for another FA here?Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Too right. I think it needs to be FA to be on the portal, also is a fairly vital article for project.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing areas and some suggestions

The following missing bits are identified by a brief glance at bird works and encyclopaedia entries

  • There should be some mention of maintenance activities such as dust-bathing, bathing, powder down and could go along with the current bits on the uropygial gland and anting.
  • A section on predators, parasites and diseases (with links to zoonoses)
  • Some bit on bill, feet adaptations, feeding guilds, communities etc.

The section title "Radiation of modern birds" may be confusing for some. The sections "Dinosaurs and the origin of birds" and "Radiation of modern birds" should be either subsection s within "Evolution and taxonomy" or paragraphs in it. The definition part in Use of the term "bird" could move into the lead. Shyamal 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The maintenance activities should easily slot in to feathers, and it should be possible to include feeding adaptations and guilds in with diet. I've thought about communities but am at something of a loss on how to do it without expounding a huge amount of general community theory - is there anything about bird communities that is particularly special? I can't think of anything. Likewaise predators, disease and parasites - they have them, but so does every animal. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of some coverage of insectivory modes -flycatching, ground foraging, leaf gleaning, trunk and branch foraging, frugivory, nectarivory for woodland birds along with vertical zonation (a la Diamond et al.) and horizontal zonation among shorebirds and waterbirds. I have mentioned in the past that there is a normally expected bit on bill and feet adaptations that is missing here. There may be a stream of page visitors with interest in things like H5N1, WNV, Japanese Encepalitis, Psittacosis etcetera and it may be worthwhile mentioning birdlice and their co-evolution along with things like feral cat predation, introduced animals and their threats to island avifaunas etc. Shyamal 04:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the bills and feet, it should be possible to feed the adaptations in with each section feeding, for example expanding Three species of prion, the flamingos and some ducks are filter feeders. to something like Three species of prion, the flamingos and some ducks have modified filamentous bills used to filter feed.
The insectivore, yes, that needs to be in there.
Diseases.... I guess, yeah. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The section on Bioindicators in ecology - I suggest moving this too Economic importance as it is more about humans and birds than their natural ecology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree, above the economy section though in the human relations lead. Shyamal 06:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Missing area Bird senses : Vision, ultraviolet etc. Hearing..., Smell.. not sure of where this should go. Shyamal 05:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Smell is already covered in anatomy - generally poor. Ultraviolet vision should be covered there. Hearing - there s very little that is unique to birds hearing wise, they are kinda average that way. The oilbird is the only exception I can think of. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 'Causes of death' section

This is a proposed Causes of death section for the article, it could fit between 4 Behavior and 5 Relationship with humans. It is based on some of Shyamal's suggestions in the section above.

  • Causes of death
    • Predators
    • Disease
    • Parasites
    • Death due to human activity
      • Oil spills
      • Loss of habitat
      • Flying into large windows

Please help me decide if this should be included in the article, and help renaming these subsections if needed. We would also need some text for each subsection before inserting it into the article. LinguistAtLarge 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose this in the way laid out above. I am currently working (reading and digging up refs) on a Ecology section which would include predation upon and disease/parasites of - the human causes of mortality is already touched on in conservation and is being further expanded upon in the bird conservation. It doesn't need its own section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:Sabine's Sunbird in the choice of level of detail for this article. But definitely worth including in a suitable satellite article (Conservation / Ecology). I forgot to mention that I discovered later that several of my comments were already covered in the article. Shyamal 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine with me. As long as all those points are touched in other areas, I see no problem with it. Thanks for your input. LinguistAtLarge 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Efficient use of whitespace

There is a lot of white space to the right of the table of contents and in the external links section. Perhaps these can be filled usefully with an illustration in the first case and more links in the second case. Shyamal 03:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

template scrollref

User:Eachwiped changed the way that the references are listed at the bottom to use the newish Template:Scrollref. I've reverted it back, for the moment, as the article is currently in the final stages of being cleaned for featured article status, and the ability to quickly view all the references is useful for reviewers (both peer reviewers, FAC reviewers, and copyeditors). Once the article is featured it could be restored, although there are some ongoing issues with the template (it doesn't print all the references being the largest) and it is unliked by some editors, so the issue should be decided here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How do birds mate?

The article barely mentions this. External fertilization? The female lays an egg and the male puts sperm onto it? RobertM525 05:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I call it bird-back riding. The male hops on the female's back for a few seconds (or more if it is an Albatross or something like that). Fertilization is internal but cloacae meet up outside. Female birds only have one functional ovary, the left one. Some birds, like waterfowl, ratites, and turkeys, have an organ that injects sperm. See more on Bird anatomy#Reproduction Frankyboy5 23:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll fit a line in somewhere in the main article pointing to the bird anatomy article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Animated imgs

Is there any support for animated images ? I see merit in cases such as Geneva drive, or perhaps something to demonstrate a particular bird behaviour but not for a slideshow of bird diversity. Shyamal 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to see when it would be appropriate. Jimfbleak 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The one that has been added to Bird orders is pretty terrible. It should probably go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We see to have consensus ;) here ! Shyamal 06:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories and Alan Feduccia et al

Regarding the deletetion of the non-dinosaur theory of bird origins, which was deleted, restored, redeleted; removing a lrage chunk of the article that has references should be discussed on the talk page rather than just done. The theory is supported by a number of scientists, but is not given equal weight, as it is very much a minority view and has little widespread support. It still needs to be included, if only to dismiss it. If you have further thoughts on this then please bring them up here, and we can improve that section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

With such logic we should mention every other notable alternate theory of birds origins that have some support of scientist. Including, for example, intelligent design theory (in fact origins of flight play important role in rationale for ID). But what is more important - we give uneducated reader impression that there is a doubts about birds origins in scientific community. Which is basically not true. Number of facts that support dinosaur origins of birds is enormous. And I do think that your claim that "the Alan Feduccia's theory IS supported by a number of scientists" plain wrong. At the end - let me to quote response of Nwbeeson left on my talk page - and I totally agree with his point:
So I think that the best thing to do - is to delete the sentence in question from Wikipedia. Also, I do not agree that it is a large chunk of the article or a major change as you claim. TestPilot 03:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it looked like more when I re-added it (cause of the two refs). I still disagree that it should be excluded, IDS may be another theory but it isn't a theory that has managed to publish multiple articles in reputable scientific journals or attract the support of noted ornithologists like Storrs Olson or Alan Feduccia. It's almost certainly wrong, and support continues to drain from it, but it is controversial and should be mentioned in that light. We can and probably should alter the wording to make it clearer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The difference between ID and the Feducciaries is that scientific journals actually publish Feduccia/Martin/Olson/Lingham-Soliar's work. It's published, peer-reviewed research. We may all agree that it is complete hogwash, but by not including it in the article we are saying that we know better than the editors of major science journals. Much has also been published in opposition to the work of the Feducciaries. It would not be inappropriate to write "Feduccia et al. say ____. However, everyone else notes that ____." Sheep81 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Feathers

I can not make my cousin beleive that penguins are birds, because they do not fly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.197.169.110 (talk • contribs).

Last time I looked chickens couldn't fly either. What does your cousin think they are? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Baby Birds

We have a nest of birds inside a plastic container and we think their parents have abandoned them, though we are not sure. What should we do to help the birds out?

I'd suggest: Leave them alone. People often think that parents have abandoned when in fact they are just hiding from you. It's hard to be certain without knowing more tho. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bird/Archive_3&oldid=1092052346"