Talk:List of birds of California

Featured pictures

More than less as a note to my self, there are currently 15 featured or quality pictures on this page out of the [41] total pictures. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Naturalized parrots

@NeonTetraploid:I removed:

13 species of naturalized parrots have been recorded in California .

• Red-crowned parrot, Amazona viridigenalis (I)
• Lilac-crowned parrot, Amazona finschi (I)
• Red-lored parrot, Amazona autumnalis (I)
• Blue-fronted parrot, Amazona aestiva (I)
• Yellow-headed parrot, Amazona oratrix (I)
• White-fronted parrot, Amazona albifrons (I)
• Mitred parakeet, Psittacara mitratus (I)
• Red-masked parakeet, Psittacara erythrogenys (I)
• Blue-crowned parakeet, Thectocercus acuticaudatus (I)
• Nanday parakeet, Nandayus nenday (I)
• Yellow-chevroned parakeet, Brotogeris chiriri (I)
• White-winged parakeet, Brotogeris versicolurus (I)
• Rose-ringed parakeet, Psittacula krameri (I)

I think that what you added makes sense generally, but since this list is based on the California Bird Records Committee's "Official California Checklist", we can't add those species. It's arguable as to whether that's a good idea or not, but we should decide on that before making changes. Perhaps there should be a seperate list for naturalized species, or we could add a seperate section with an explanation to this list.

Does that make sense? Any other ideas? Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Sounds good. Also, I believe the entry for Red crowned parrot was already on the list before I edited it, so it should be added back to the list instead of removed. NeonTetraploid (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)NeonTetraploid

Alphabetic vs: taxonomic sequencing

I am by no means an avian taxonomist, nor do I intend to be one. Today I came to this page hoping to identify various birds, only to find out that should I wish to understand the ordering of this page, and to "easily" find the birds I was looking for, first I would have to become an avian taxonomist. It seems to me that WP is intended to be more of a general reference to all than as merely a "technical manual" intended only for a certain small and limited group of specialists. Unless anyone can explain to me why they feel that this WP article is more helpful for the general public for which it is intended, when sorted taxonomically, instead of alphabetically, I am planning on soon resorting the various categories/ families of birds listed in the article alphabetically, so that lay-readers such as myself will have an easier time navigating the page.

Afterwards, avian taxonomists will still be able to easily look things up alphabetically. As the page now stands, the many lay-readers of this article such as myself are currently finding the navigation of this page to be rather difficult, but will be much helped by an alphabetical page layout. All comments welcome.

Thanks,
One passer by (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@One passer by: I think there's value in the taxonomic sequencing. If a person is looking for a tern, for example, and they are not sure which one, they can look at the other terns or the other birds in the same category that are not called "terns". The easiest way to find a specific name is to search for it with Ctrl+f or ⌘ Command+f. Another factor is that this is one in a series of several hundred and there's value in consistency between them all. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SchreiberBike for explaining some of this to me here. I'm not saying that the genus of terns, which is currently listed under Gulls, terns and skimmers, should be in any way broken up. I'm merely saying that that "family" would be more easily found if it fell in alphabetically between say the Frigatebird family and the Hummingbird family. F,G,H. Why not?

Further...

After skimming through other similar lists, I do see that the bird "families" seem to all be sequenced in a similar fashion on the other article pages. Apparently listing taxonomic "families" of the same taxonomic "order" next to one another, but still even these "orders" (using Latin nomenclature) aren't even in any alphabetical sequence. Also, I recently took the liberty of sorting the species alphabetically within two of the families on this California birds page. I hope I didn't screw anything up, but it just makes imminent sense to alphabetize such seemingly random lists of species. As this "die" already seems to be "cast" to use this archaic sequencing throughout the WP bird articles, I won't challenge it. Still, why haven't the species within the families/(WP:categories) of birds even been alphabetized? Same arcane logic? Again, thanks for teaching this wannabe birder about these things...

Responding to: @SchreiberBike:

One passer by (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to @One passer by: copy to @SchreiberBike: The "seemingly random" list of species is very far from random: Taxonomic sequence has meaning. One value of it on all scales is to describe the relationships between members of each level of the sequence. For instance, most folks don't know that falcons and parrots are closely related, and an alphabetical list of families won't show that. Similarly within a family, an alphabetical list won't tell a reader that mallard and American black duck are "sisters". As far as identifying individual birds as you first stated as why you came to the page, you'll get identifying information from each species' article. (Please don't alphabetize any more parts of this article, thank you.) Craigthebirder (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I rolled back my edits. I'll take your word for it. I guess if its good enough for the AOS, its good enough for me. I also inserted a brief explanation of the value of taxonomic sequencing in the lead for future numbskulls such as myself. Thanks for your patience and instruction. Responding to: @SchreiberBike: and @Craigthebirder:One passer by (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to @One passer by: copy to @SchreiberBike: Thank you for reverting the changes. Please understand that inexperience with a concept doesn't make you a numskull! And I like your addition to the intro. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

July 2, 2020 revisions

Because of the large number of changes necessitated by the update to the Check-list of North and Middle American Birds which the American Ornithological Society published on June 30, 2020, the revisions to this article are presented here rather than in a long series of edit summaries. Changes are per the AOS unless otherwise noted.

• Revise the references, counts, and text in the introduction.
• Add 1 species per the CBRC and 1 per eBird and AOS.
• Revise 2 genera.
• Revise multiple families' common names per Clements.
• Revise the sequence of species in family Phasiannidae (Pheasants, grouse, and allies).
• Revise the sequence of species in genus Selasphorus (Hummingbirds).
• Revise the sequence of genera in family Trochilidae (Hummingbirds).
• Revise the sequence of species in family Rallidae (Rails, gallinules, and coots).
• Revise the sequence of families in order Suliformes.
• Revise the sequence of species in family Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants and shags).
• Revise the sequence of species in family Cathartidae (New World vultures).
• Revise the sequence of species in family Strigidae (Owls).

Craigthebirder (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2021 revision

These are the changes made to update this list to the 2021 Check-list of North and Middle American Birds published by the American Ornithological Society (AOS) on June 29, 2021.

• Revise the sequence of families in Order Passeriformes.
• Split mew gull into common gull and short-billed gull and revise entries accordingly.
• Revise the binomials of four cormorant species.
• Revise the specific epithet of crested caracara.
• Revise the genus and position of ruby-crowned kinglet.
• Revise the sequence of gnatcatcher species.
• Revise text, counts, and references as appropriate.

Craigthebirder (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)