Jump to content

Talk:List of birds of India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De-linking newly elevated species

[edit]

Most of the newly elevated species (as per Rasmussen) do not have pages yet. I am delinking them and moving them the list of birds de-linked to the talk page for article creation. Prashanthns (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delink them. A redlink doesn't do anybody any harm and will encourage people to create the article. Yomanganitalk 15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Am de-redlinking based on this.Prashanthns (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of Indian birds without a SEPARATE page yet

[edit]

The ones blue-linked here have articles but are redirects to the previous higher taxon level of which they were considered sub-species. I have left others redlinked here so that the article may be created by anybody interested. All (except those marked with *) are previous sub-species elevated to full species by '"Rasmussen & Anderton. Not included in this list is Philippine Shrike Lanius cristatus lucionensis and Mount Victoria Babax Babax lanceolatus woodi which are still a sub-species.

Many of these may not require separate article creation at all. Which is why, I have delinked some of them. Once articles for these are created, they can be wikified in the article and removed from the list. I thought of initially having this on my own user-sub-page, but then realized that others might be working on the same. If however, you feel this should not be here, leave a message here, and I will consider moving it to my sub-page. Please feel free to change/re-work list. Prashanthns (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shyamal and Prashanthns: just made a small correction to link to Sri Lanka bay owl page. Much work to do on many species. Would like to chip in during coming weeks as you suggested below.--Shankar Raman (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new articles

[edit]

Hi, May we have articles on Bird migration in India, MigrantWatch and List of Migrant birds of India. I feel these will be useful to the amateur bird community. AshLin (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree. also List of endemic birds of India, List of birds of Western Ghats and so on. didnt realise that i am responding to almost 2 years old message. :) --CarTick 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images

[edit]

wouldnt it be more appropriate to include images pictured only in India. --CarTick 01:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have seen several edits to the article since i posted this note and no one cares to respond. i am going to take the liberty to replace the images (if available). --CarTick (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New species addition

[edit]

A new species being added to the list as "Cyanouptera cyanocephala" appears to be Cyanoptila cyanomelana however this needs a more reliable source than what is being used. Likewise changes that summarily remove doubts raised by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005). I have reverted for now. Shyamal (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India vs Indian Subcontinent vs South Asia

[edit]

Is this page a list of birds of India or Indian Subcontinent (including Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives & Sri Lanka) or South Asia (including Afghanistan & Chagos Arch.) ?

Some examples of inconsistencies observed...

a. Cape Petrel included - but vagrant to SriLanka & no records in India, Short-tailed Shearwater (Pakistan & SriLanka only), Lichtenstein's Sandgrouse (Pakistan only) b. Long-tailed Skua excluded - if this list is for Indian Subcontinent & South Asia - the species is present in Sri Lanka and should be included c. Pygmy Cormorant not included - if this list is for South Asia - the species is recorded from Afghanisation and should be included

Based on the view of senior editors of this page, further edits can be done. Paintedstork (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redneckedfalcon8nd.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Redneckedfalcon8nd.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing with India Checklist

[edit]

Made a quick pass through the list removing species which are considered hypothetical. Used the below link http://www.indianbirds.in/india/

Have added all missing species that came to my mind with the relevant references. Need to make another pass to ensure that all recent additions are added with proper citations. Will do so soon. I have not touched upon taxonomy where some work is required. Paintedstork (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of missing species

[edit]

To the best of my abilities, I have added all the missing species from the India checklist into the Wiki. Its though to be 100% sure. Next is to decide the taxonomy to choose for species limits. Its a slightly major update as we are expected to follow the same later for the taxonomic sequence also, I would like to take opinions from senior Wiki editors from what we should follow for this page. The current page follows IOC 3.2, or atleast it claims so (I did not cross check as its a very old version). Slightly easier options are move to latest IOC 6.3 or follow 'India Checklist' (which is based on Howard & Moore 4th edition). Difficult options are move to latest eBird/Clements or HBW/Birdlife International. Paintedstork (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving towards Howard & Moore 4th edition

[edit]

I made a baby step towards movement towards a latest taxonomy, which I have chosen Howard & Moore 4th edition. The choice was more driven by what India checklist follows and coupled with the fact that I received no other inputs from rest of the editors. Now, the species limits for this checklist follows India Checklist/H&M4 though the sequence and the nomenclature do not do so yet. Another minor step done was to tag (A) for rarities and (E) for endemic species (not subspecies). Paintedstork (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is a wise decision. The fact really is that there is no such thing as a "correct taxonomy" and everyone is free to follow a systematic treatment of their choice. The IOC world bird list is simply the most up-to-date system mainly because of the large numbers of contributors to its maintenance. H & M might be useful for museum ornithologists who prefer to be conservative and do not like to keep shifting their cabinets but it simply does not stand up to utility on dynamic information systems like Wikipedia. Also note Wikipedia's guidelines on preferring multiple sources rather than relying on single sources. Using W&M could also possibly clash with the treatment used on some species pages where taxonomic histories are ideally well-covered. Shyamal (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your views and was wondering why you kept silent when my earlier posting on taxonomic choice was posted three months back. It does not matter what taxonomic system is followed as long one does not mix up four/five different taxonomies - hence, my earlier posting in July 2016 on what should be the choice for this page. I do not fully understand how Wikipedia will use multiple sources for a listing like this - every editor will have a choice to change the sort order and/or names based on the 'source' that is being used. My preference - is to be explicit in what is being followed and then for species comments, alternate treatments can be highlighted if required. Meanwhile, listing a set of contributors in a website no proof towards collaboration - hence, I disagree with the rationale for your conclusion on the most up-to-date taxonomy. By the same logic, Clements checklist has an even larger number of contributors listed including a larger number of representatives from south Asia. Hence, by the same logic, that should be considered as the most up-to-date. Also, would you mind pointing to me a reference that mentions that H&M is useful only for museum ornithologists ? I am curious - since you made a statement here, it would be good to clarify if its your own opinion or from a published review? In summary, the taxonomic choice to follow is entirely yours and it does not matter one or the other. However, it highly preferable that the primary taxonomy used by stated explicitly in the heading itself. Paintedstork (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this only now! Easy to miss unless one uses a @Paintedstork: - there is an overall policy on the bird project to use the IOC and discuss exceptions only when needed - the advantages have been discussed often. The list is essentially an index to the remaining pages and unless all are based on the same taxonomy having odd redirects would be extremely difficult to maintain. Everyone is of course free to use any selected taxonomy for private publications such as the one you follow in the list you cite, but it would be impractical to impose that here. Shyamal (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not debate the utility of a standard taxonomy for Wiki or for that matter anything that deals with birds. But, we are far from having a universal world taxonomy. There are sufficient, substantial, deep technical arguments and rationale on why the current four/five world taxonomies have not yet aligned. However, what you stated above have already misinterpreted the facts of the Wiki proposal (that I am made aware of). The proposal that had votes below explicitly eliminated regional lists - for a good enough reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_69#Standard_for_taxonomy Wikipedia's taxonomy for bird species, subspecies, genus, family and order pages follows that of the IOC, unless consensus determines there's a reason not to. This decision does not affect country, state or other regional lists that use a different, named, taxonomy, or other articles that discuss bird biodiversity or birds in general. Where disagreement exists between the major taxonomic authorities, articles should note this.

Hence, whatever I have done earlier by explicitly following India Checklist, which you have now patched to IOC, was infact fully aligned to the current Wiki proposal for regional lists. Now that does not invalidate what you have done as long as you clearly state the taxonomy in the page itself. Feel free to take this further. Paintedstork (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paintedstork: - I do not see any misrepresentation - lists normally stick to the standard with which it was begun, just as English versions stick to American or British as begun. In any case the primary purpose of list type articles on Wikipedia is to act as an index to the other pages on Wikipedia and are in no way meant to substitute any regional or official standard. I agree that indicating the standard followed is useful. In fact the older versions did have this text which has been removed - "This list's taxonomic treatment (designation and sequence of orders, families and species) and nomenclature (common and scientific names) are broadly based on the International Ornithologists’ Union list (version 3.2). The family accounts at the beginning of each heading reflect this taxonomy, as do the species counts found in each family account." Shyamal (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of birds of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Images needed

[edit]

A reduced list was made by Amith on another forum for species pages that require images - here it is for anyone looking to fill gaps:


- Hi, I just added some images to Andaman coucal, Pied falconet and Jerdon's nightjar pages using WikiProject Nature and conservation in India contributions and other available images. Will post a note about this on the WikiProject talk page to see if other images can be contributed and added. Shankar Raman (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thanks @Shankar Raman: Shyamal (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Shyamal: found Grey nightjar image already in Jungle nightjar page, so changed/moved the file to correct species page. And added a different image for Jungle nightjar taxobox.--Shankar Raman (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Shyamal:, added image for another species: Ashy-headed green pigeon. Uploaded as part of Commons:WikiProject_Nature_and_conservation_in_India. Is it time to pare the list?--Shankar Raman (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Shankar Raman, please feel free to strike out entries on that list. Also would be great if we can start article improvement collaborations. We pick an article and together try to spruce it up to reflect what is currently known with good referencing. Shyamal (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clements pushing

[edit]

I have removed the following: "This list's taxonomic treatment (designation and sequence of orders, families and species) and nomenclature (common and scientific names) follow the conventions of The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World, 2019 edition.[1][2] "

References

  1. ^ Clements, J. F., T. S. Schulenberg, M. J. Iliff, D. Roberson, T. A. Fredericks, B. L. Sullivan, and C. L. Wood. 2018. The eBird/Clements checklist of birds of the world: v2018. Downloaded from http://www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist/download/ Retrieved 12 July 2019
  2. ^ Lepage, Denis (1 July 2016). "Checklist of birds of India". Avibase bird checklists of the world. Retrieved 24 August 2019.

Since list articles are essentially indices to Wikipedia entries, it makes little sense to make them follow a different convention. There is no special need to give credence to one list of Indian birds that is used in places as a reference. Shyamal (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of India

[edit]

Shyamal, I don't mind not using Clements as a reference, but the list does not have one. Clements and the IOC seem to be the only authorities keeping current on taxonomy that I know of, with Clements just publishing theirs. Do you recommend another list reference? Clements is now over 1349 species not including 2019 changes. The header now states 1266 species as of 2016. I'll wait a bit to make any more changes until you can get back to me...Pvmoutside (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand why you are tying down one national list (from 2016) to Clements (one could just as well use the IOC equivalents except where there are splits and lumps) - the taxonomy and species concept for Wiki articles anyway follows IOC as understood on WP:BIRDS. The counts of species seen within national limits is not particularly important and in fact could be prefixed by "approximate" - these are in any case estimates since taxonomy will be in flux and many of the one-off records from tour groups and photographers will continue to be in need of verification over time and these checklists do not really represent any hard science. What the list essentially serves as is to be an index to species articles - and in that I see no reason to use Clements or any other naming convention other than what our article pages do. And please no American spellings - gray is almost NEVER used in India. Shyamal (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so Craigthebirder and I have updating the country lists to make them more up to date. He has been doing a better job than I, concentrating his time on the Nearctic, and some European and African countries. He uses the AOC for the Nearctic, and Clements plus various country/regional authorities for Europe and Africa. I started on India because of population size and Wikipedia interest, and plan to do other country lists as time allows. I've already updated Japan, Vatican City, Algeria, Egypt, New Zealand, and Western Australia via Clements. I've been following Craigthebirder's formats using Clements, but can use another authority if you prefer. Reconfirm if you prefer I use the IOC naming convention (or anyone else) for India. That should take care of the "a" vs. "e" issue. I also hearc thru the grapevine that Clements and the IOC were having discussions to synch up some time down the road. I agree with you the counts aren't that important, but birders do add accidental reports to country/state lists with varying regularity, and there are always species splits and lumps, taxonomic changes, and common name changes to stay on top of that I pay attention to and hope important enough to update as the authorities do. It appears now to happen only twice a year with the IOC and once a year with Clements. Again, reconfirm with me if you want me to use the IOC as the authority for the India list rather than Clements, and I'll clean up what i did and move forward in that manner.....Cheers!....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best not to make any changes, WP:BIRDS has always preferred IOC and all of us editors have followed IOC and it would certainly be better to leave/keep it that way. Shyamal (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so i'd like to continue updating, using the IOC as the reference then..If I do that, I think the species additions will bring it very close to Clements and the naming conventions will be better for you. Any accidental records I find thru Avibase will follow the IOC naming conventions, plus the regular review of splits, lumps, taxonomic and common name changes will keep it up to date. IOC has 1355 species currently listed. I've added the IOC as the listing reference. One other small detail, I believe the IOC uses the word "color" rather than "colour". I think they did it as a compromise with their international list. If we add a comment after the IOC referencing British English, I think we take care of that problem.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"IOC has 1355 species currently listed" - afaik IOC does not maintain country lists so I am not sure what you mean here. If you just considered the list the same way you would treat a Set Index or other page on Wikipedia we are fine here. Regarding "will be better for you" - please note that WP:BIRDS has always followed IOC as a default and if you want to change to Clements you should discuss it more widely - I repeat that this IS NOT *my* choice. As I see it, the two of you are pushing a standard of your choice against consensus and without discussion at WP:BIRDS. Shyamal (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pvmoutside told me about this discussion since he mentions me in it. Which taxonomy to use for any country list is somewhat arbitrary. I've used American Ornithological Society taxonomy for most of the western hemisphere. But Clements is used for the vast majority of Old World country lists which is no doubt why Pvmoutside chose it - the article had no citation to its taxonomy before he started. Whatever taxonomy is used should be cited (and appears to be so now, if the list does indeed now follow IOC). Regarding numbers, there's no reason to use "approximately" and every reason to provide accurate counts of total/introduced/endemic etc. species. Regarding spelling, BE is certainly appropriate for India. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomic standard used for all WP:BIRD species article is IOC by default and deviations need to be discussed. The regional lists are essentially indexes to these articles - there is no reason to follow any other name in the lists (and certainly not with double redirects, piped links perhaps...) - and if you absolutely want to use something that deviates due to national choices then I think the place to discuss that would be WP:BIRD. " the article had no citation to its taxonomy before he started. Whatever taxonomy is used should be cited" - the older versions did mention that it was following IOC until PVM and Paintedstork pushed for non-IOC sources. "Regarding numbers, there's no reason to use "approximately" and every reason to provide accurate counts of total/introduced/endemic etc. species." - using "approximately" is actually more correct and not using it is a false claim of accuracy since the boundaries of species is soft and these numbers will always be taxonomy dependent (and that is regardless of whether you use IOC or H&M or what have you), (not to mention the fact that we are talking about large areas and not all areas have been faunistically examined across all seasons) but if you just want the numbers to reflect what the list that follows contains, then, perhaps some kind of script that updates itself when changes are made in the contents needs to be incorporated. Otherwise maintaining these totals is too hard and it would make more sense not to mention it at ll or allow any interested users to count and figure out the summary statistics they want for themselves. Shyamal (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, numbers change. But stating something like "The avifauna of India included 1266 species as of July 2019, according to [whatever the source(s)]" takes care of that between revisions. And yes, IOC is the standard naming convention for individual bird articles. But most of the national list articles were created using Clements (including this one, in 2007) and retain it; others have been changed to a local taxonomy (see List of birds of Great Britain and List of birds of Australia). I have seen no objections to these non-IOC lists. Please understand I'm not objecting to using IOC here, only noting that it's seldom used in national lists. Craigthebirder (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_birds_of_India&oldid=1212184918"