Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Hieraaetus

The treatment in Christidis and Boles is interesting. I have added a summary to the Hieraaetus article and hope it is accurate, but it does not seem to fit in with some of the other sections in the article which are confusing and could do with some historic perspective and commentary. Shyamal (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Big headache this, I thought I had seen Little Eagle sunk into Aquila somewhere too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
A perfect example why WP should not just follow a single book on taxonomy. IOC has not yet followed, although they are going to come out with a big update on genus names later this month they told me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Intermediate Egret?

Could someone just check the taxobox image of this bird? It looks rather like a Cattle Egret to me, but I'm not 100%. Aviceda talk 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to say, but it certainly looks Cattle Egrety. There are certainly more images that could be used of a better quality. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (11)

Pinkish -> Moluccan Cockatoo. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Southern Cassowary. • Rabo³ • 23:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Casuarius casuarius - Dusit Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct. • Rabo³ • 08:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Adult Yellow-crowned Night Heron jimfbleak (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Nycticorax violaceus -water -Belize-8.jpg on commons. Slightly cropped version used in the article infobox. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed as Yellow-crowned Night-Heron —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Transferred from en wiki to commons with new name File:Nycticorax violaceus -flying-8.jpg. Old en wiki file taged for deletion now that there is a copy on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Northern Caracara jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Caracara cheriway -Antwerp Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a calculated guess but I would say White-crowned Robin-chat (Cossypha albicapilla) from West Africa. Aviceda talk 06:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cossypha albicapilla -Parc Paradisio -Belgium-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Female Wreathed Hornbill jimfbleak (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
File description amended and file rename to File:Rhyticeros undulatus -parc Paradisio-4a.jpg underway. Strike put through to-be-deleted bad name file. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Two messed up Green-cheeked Parakeets (I'm pretty sure this is the variant popularly known as "cinnamon") and a Black-capped in the background. In the same flickr stream, there's also a Peaceful Dove, Barred Eagle-owl & Brown Wood-owl. • Rabo³ • 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaed to File:Pyrrhura molinae (cinnamon) -KL Bird Park-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Extras uploaded and the Peaceful Dove image used in article infobox being much clearer than the previous one. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A bit too fast with the dove, which of course is a Zebra D. as suggested by Aviceda. I've requested a rename on commons. • Rabo³ • 06:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Renaming fixed by re-uploading a new version from flickr to File:Geopelia zebra -KL Bird Park-6a.jpg and old bad name file taged for deletion. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Total of two photographs of this white-eye in the flickr photo-stream uploaded (image names ending -8a.jpg and -8b.jpg). Snowman (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

GA/FA update

Perhaps, the edits counts are a bit misleading; actually, several people have contributed off-page to identify the parrots and to improve the species pages. I am making some further additions rather slowly. I was lucky and got a new-to-the-wiki Amazon parrot image today; many thanks to a flickr photographer. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Good B class

January BBC Wildlife Magazine prints wiki Common Guillemot URL

Is there anyway to count the number of hits that this article has had since December? Grantus4504 (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! The reverse slashdot effect! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The link is http://stats.grok.se/en/200901/Common_Guillemot Shyamal (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll add details of the Ashbrook paper to the article late. Just off to count Guillemots now. Grantus4504 (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Details of alloparental behaviour and the Ashbrook paper (mentioned in the BBC Wildlife article) added. The alloparental stuff could probably do with more refs. Any thoughts? (ps. 552 Guillemots in my survey site this morning) Grantus4504 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is usually a annual downward trend in hits in December. Changes in hits can be difficult to interpret. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible DYK

Vinaceous Amazon is a possible DYK with hooks about its name and wine coloured chest or its rarity. 90 words today. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge ?

Does someone remember why Bird colony and Seabird colony have been kept apart ? Shyamal (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know seabird colony is older. I don't imagine thee is any reason, t just sort of happened that way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
merge is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ID

This image is currently used at bird strike with a caption indicating that the bird is a "type of crane" - I think we can go further and state that it's a Common Crane - what do others think? SP-KP (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch.
According to List of birds of Israel, the alternative is the Demoiselle Crane. I think I can see the narrow extension of the white on the neck that seems to be typical of Common—is that what you were thinking? My opinion might be worth more if I'd ever seen either of these species. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right - Demoiselle is the other geographical possibility; I ruled that out because the outline of the white patch seemed to fit Common but not Demoiselle, where it tapers narrowly to the eye. SP-KP (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, no objectors, so I've updated the caption, and also added a note at the Wikimedia source page. SP-KP (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

stop capitalizing names of birds

You all are being new fangled. This is the Enlgish language, not German. TCO (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We've done this many times, but I can't resist the opportunity to mention an excellent example of the reason for capitalization. This is from a post to the Birdchat list by Laura Erickson, the science editor for the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology:
A few weeks ago a young Little Blue Heron appeared in Sapsucker Woods, and I sent in a note to a campus newspaper. The editor who goes through my work changed the capital letters to conform to their style, making it young little blue heron. Then a copy editor decided that young and little were somewhat redundant and made it into young blue heron. Oh, well.[1]
(For background, TCO, "blue heron" in the U.S. usually means the Great Blue Heron, in a different genus from the Little Blue Heron. The Great Blue Heron is no surprise at Cornell, but the Little Blue Heron is a rarity that far north.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
TCO, yes, you are right, strictly speaking limited to the English language, but the general agreement among people who actually work with birds is to use Capitalized Names, and it is not to Wikipedia to suddenly change that. So, your demand will be fully ignored. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The bird workers should not trump the rest of the human race. Any group in a specialized area could decide to start capitalizing all their words. Maybe tools: Monkey Wrench and Jigsaw. TCO (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of order; "English speakers of the world" ≠ "rest of human race". And plenty of specialised groups choose to play fast and free with capitals. Take marketers - in what world is iPod grammatically correct? Or family names - the order Primates, the family Procellariidae, the genus Ara. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It was good reason that there is a policy called WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Otherwise, since this is the English WP, Latin names should not be used and since the majority of the human race presumably do not understand classification, we should remove the taxoboxes (the majority probably does not watch birds or know English either, btw) Shyamal (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, if we were to follow TCO's idea, we'd be pushing WP:NOR, as you'd be hard pressed to find any book published within the last 30 years that deals with birds at a professional level and doesn't use caps in names. A quote from the intro of WP:NOR (emphasis mine): "...you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." That can easily be done with the names with caps (as a large percentage of the bird articles were started via the IUCN pages, virtually all articles already have a source that supports this), but not with the names without. • Rabo³ • 02:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I have little up with people with act like the grammar police because they think their way of language use is better than how others do it, showing at the same time your ignorance about the topic. So, let me fill you in about the rules for capitalisation of animal names on general as was conveyed to me by a professional science editor. What she told me is that when their is a agreed upon standard names, those names are proper nouns and therefore capitalized. My guess is that you will disagree with that, and that is fine. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual animals are proper nouns. The animal itself is not. The push for capitalizing species could as easily be taken to any classes of thing. Maybe subjects in school: Math, Chemistry, etc. It is only a very recent and trendy thing with the birdwatchers to try to capitalize English names of birds (and now they want to extend it to animals...and perhaps tools soon also). I just googled a bunch of general grammar sources and they say only capitalize English species names if there is a person or place in the name (and just that part). It's a dog, not a Dog. Wikipedia should follow GENERAL usage...not some trendy faddy trying to change things usage. TCO (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that species names aren't grammatically proper nouns. In fact, I'd say there's only one good reason to capitalize them: clarity. However, as clarity is the purpose of grammar and linguistic convention, that reason overrides all objections.
I gave an example above of the ambiguity of "little blue heron". There are many others: "Mexican jay" (the Mexican Jay is one of 17 jay species in Mexico), "blue jay" (the Blue Jay is one of six largely blue jay species in the U.S. and Canada), "common gull" (the Common Gull is one of many gull species that are abundant somewhere or other), etc. That's why most ornithological and birding publications capitalize them, and why we do in bird articles (not elsewhere).
Your argument about tools is a straw man, since nobody has suggested capitalizing tool names (that I know of). Unless there's some advantage in clarity, nobody's likely to. Your mention of German is also a straw man, since nobody has suggested capitalizing all nouns.
Finally, this practice is not especially new. I have a Peterson guide, copyright 1947, that capitalizes species names (though it differs from current practice in also capitalizing Duck, Sparrow, etc.). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Points of order - yeas, it's dog, not Dog, and gull, not Gull - but its gull (for the type of bird and Red-billed Gull for the species. And this isn't just a "birdwatching thing", it is used by a number of ornithological organisations, scientists and publications. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
TCO, sorry, but your opinion about Bird names not being proper nouns is not carried by all in this field, including science editors. You are sorely misunderstood about the scope of using capitalisation of birds names, which is ubiquitous among anybody researching birds, including birders. I just checked some academic older works, and they all used capitals. But there is another issue, and that is that you see each species as a collection of individuals, and therefore you should not use a proper noun. However, that is incorrect, each species is its own entity, and therefore the proper noun is the only accurate. That is why the collecion of mountains in the western US is called Rocky Mountains and rocky mountains. Or should we call the subcollection of the Dog called Chihuahua's chihuahua without capitalisation? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rocky Mountains is a place (a proper noun), but mountain or hill or valley are not. Flicka is a proper noun. Horse is not. TCO (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just like Little Egret is a thing, and thus a proper noun. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Split?

Phoebetria fusca, Sooty Albatross, Phoebetria palpebrata and Light-mantled Albatross all redirect to Sooty albatross, a genus-level page which says that there are two species, P. fusca, Light-mantled Sooty Albatross, and P. palpebrata, Dark-mantled Sooty Albatross. Either we are missing two species articles, or the Sooty albatross page is incorrect/not generally accepted. I know nothing about albatross taxonomy, but the current situation cannot be correct. jimfbleak (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The two are certainly not conspecific. This is one of the few cases of species-level taxonomy among albatrosses where there is essentially nothing to discuss (though some data suggests that it goes even further with three species in Phoebetria – P. fusca actually consisting of two [phylogenetic only?] species). However, most just use the name Sooty Albatross for P. fusca and Light-mantled Albatross for P. palpebrata, and I would suggest people stay away from starting the new pages on the unnecessarily long and less frequently used Dark-mantled Sooty Albatross and Light-mantled Sooty Albatross. If people think this leads to too much confusion for sooty albatross genus versus the Sooty Albatross species, there is a far greater argument for moving the genus to the genus name Phoebetria, as using "sooty albatross" to some extend is made up (same can be said about North Pacific albatrosses). • Rabo³ • 15:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
When I created this article it was when we still created single articles for very closely related species pairs (fulmars, giant petrels etc). I just never got round to creating the individual articles. I do recall that sooty albatross was the term used in some books to describe the genus (or sooties). Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I was musing on this myself as I was reading about giant petrels a few days ago and reminding myself to split them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Rabo on this, but am not really too bothered by which common names are used, as long as ambiguity and confusion are avoided. I have commented on this at Talk:Sooty albatross if anyone wants to add to the discussion. Maias (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Have made start article on Light-mantled Albatross, using secondary sources. It would be nice if anyone with access to primary sources (plenty around, I believe) and with better editing skills could help expand and improve it. Maias (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Moved the Sooty albatross article to reduce confusion with the stub I created for the other species. Will try and expand over the weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Prime ground for some dyks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Light-mantled Albatross now nominated for DYK. Maias (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos from Flickr

We're now down to 6666 articles needing photos. I'm currently keeping a log of my requests at Flickr and will write up some results in a month or two. It will include whether I got a reply or not, and if so how long it took and whether they changed it or not. I'm also keeping track of whether I ultimately get a photo of the species if a particular person says no. What we also need is some info on what % of bird species there actually are photos for there (and for here). Richard001 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I managed to knock off another family a few days ago with a Crested Berrypecker (Painted berrypecker family). I should chase up the tepid affirmative for the Borneo Bristlebird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There's one here which the uploader has replied to me about in Portuguese. It's not easy to follow (the translation of her reply) but I think she's saying she isn't sure about the identification. Could someone take a look at it and see if it's the right species (I'm pretty sure it's not; see e.g. the other picture here, which is similar to other Google image results), and if not suggest which one it's likely to be? I have inquired about the other photo on Flickr and I don't seem to be able to get the image in any form. Richard001 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I know very little about Central/South American species but would say that it might be Striped Cuckoo. Theres a pic here here which might be the same. Aviceda talk 06:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Striped Cuckoo Tapera naevia jimfbleak (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Good, we need it. One of the commentators at the Flickr site (CMarceloJ) also gave this id. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pacific v Kelp Gull

The image recently uploaded to the Kelp Gull taxobox File:Larus_dominicanus_Bruny_Island.jpg was actually a Pacific Gull and is wrongly labelled on Commons, Could the person(s) that uploaded the image to the Kelp Gull article please take more care in identifying their species....they are fairly easy to tell apart by bill-shape alone! Aviceda talk 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Kelp Gull could be a DYK "...that the species specific part of the binomial name comes from the Dominican order of friars who wore black and white habits..." Grantus4504 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It would have to be expanded pretty big (minimum of 279 x 5 = 1300 words or more) from this revision. Possible though as I am sure there is alot of info out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

more DYKs?

I expanded Crested Penguin fivefold (just) to be eligible for DYK. If someone wants to make a nice species table like the one in banded penguin they would be appreciated, as well as adding further info or suggesting an alternate DYK hook. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Digital sound recorder

I know some editors have commented on the lack of sounds and calls on bird articles. Well, I'm off to Vanuatu in March and in addition to taking my camera to get some of the local endemics I was thinking of picking up a digital recorder to record some birdsong and calls. Can anyone point me in the direction of a fairly small low end one that will at least do the basics (maybe playback to entice in the more wary species) or a site that discusses it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a microphone, or would you need a unit that has a built-in mic? MeegsC | Talk 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a microphone. I assume they are better with them, but would prefer the simpler ones that some guides I've been with had. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My experience with (really) low-end recorders (one in a Nikon E3700 and a Creative Zen Stone plus) is that they have a cutoff at about 3000-4000 Hertz and some bird calls get their notes chopped. A distinctive two note call of the Large-billed Leaf-warbler loses one note and some high notes can get chopped to produce beat like sounds instead of squeaks (like this I got recently - improved a bit with software) (Little Spiderhunter song File:LittleSpiderhunterSong.ogg). Shyamal (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC) ps:Worth noting that theoretically the highest frequency that can be detected is half the sampling rate Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem - so if the recorder can really do 44.1kHz sampling then it should be good enough to catch upto 22kHz. Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
At the high end is the Remembird (review), which you can attach to binoculars. You can set it to a continuous-listening mode, which continually erases except when you tell it to save what you just heard. Very convenient for that bird that only calls once. E-mail me if you want to know my birthday. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
That is sweet. And hey, if the pound keeps falling you'll be able to buy one with pocket change. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sabines, I know it's not what you are asking (...but thought it might interest you) I use a Sony HDR Handycam and even if I get no decent video the audio is excellent. (the audio on Fiji Whistler was actually captured whilst filming Silktail, just a thought. Aviceda talk 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[Deindent] Do many digital [video] cameras allow recording of audio only? You can strip out the audio alone if the video isn't any good, but it's rather contrived to do so. Being able to record sound alone is convenient. Richard001 (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I don't think so but I have Windows and Linux-based software that will allow export to audio with no great difficulty (KinoDV and Adobe Premiere Elements) and occasionally I can actually use the video too - see Lewin's Rail. Aviceda talk 09:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Flycatcher

Have tried to upgrade Yellow-rumped Flycatcher a bit and in the process noticed that Ficedula elisae seems to be a full species per worldbirdnames.org and others and there seems to be too little information out there to split it out of the Narcissus Flycatcher page. Shyamal (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've finally added some song to the Winter Wren (Spurred on by the above discussion about Digital Sound Recorders). Is there a recommended way to add an audio file to and article? I looked at a few different bird articles (Canada Goose, Northern Pintail, House Wren, Common Blackbird), and they all handled audio files in a different way. Would it be heplful to have at example on the Project pages? Grantus4504 (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely it depends. I mean, if you are referring to a specific type of call in the text, the natural place to have that specific call would be in the text (see Ring-tailed Lemur for an example). A more general inclusion of a call would be better treated like an image (see Antbird for an example). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Making the ogg file was ok, as was uploading to common. When it came to including the file in the article I got confused. Should I have used Audio? Sound? Listen? or (with your Antbird example,) Image? I would have found it easier if there was an example on the project page. I'm not saying that it has to be a standard, just a quick and easy example that gets the sounds linked to the articles. It took me about an hour testing different tags in my Sandbox before I found something that worked. Grantus4504 (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've uploaded a few audio-files with no great problems, copy the code (and insert your details) from Fiji Whistler Aviceda talk 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say don't use Northern Pintail as an example. That method causes the .ogg file to upload to your computer when you click on it, which I suspect most people don't want to do. I suspect that most people just want to hear it play immediately. MeegsC | Talk 05:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank's for all the helpful comments. I'll put a few examples on the Project Page if no one objects. Grantus4504 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User Bensecs

This guy is adding Audubon images to everything in sight. He is sourcing them to RestoredPrints.com, and says they hold the copyright. I believe that this is correct, since the prints are restored and corrected and not just faithful photographic images as required for PD-Art. He is saying that the prints are PD with attribution, but the site claims copyright. Just a heads-up to watch him jimfbleak (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have requested both photos deleted on commons. Should someone agree/disagree, feel free to comment here and here. • Rabo³ • 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I deleted all the en-wiki images, but didn't think to check commons - I don't have admin rights on commons anyway. jimfbleak (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
For "correct" read "incorrect"? I've done stuff like that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Though I'm not Jimfbleak, I think I can answer above rightfully with a no and yes/no. Quoting the initial message (text in square brackets is mine): "He is sourcing them to RestoredPrints.com [correct], and says they hold the copyright [incorrect, the person who uploaded them claims they are copyright free per PD-Art, but I presume jimfbleak believes – as do I – it is correct that RestoredPrints.com holds the copyright, considering that jimfbleak deleted the photos that had been uploaded here on English wiki]". • Rabo³ • 17:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, RestoredPrints.com holds the copyright, as claimed by Bensec, but they are not licensed by the website as PD with attribution (as claimed by Bensec), nor can they qualify for PD-Art jimfbleak (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I was misreading it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sparrows

I made the redlinked Large-billed Sparrow into a redirect to Savannah Sparrow, which is where all the info is. However, that article says Large-billed is a good species. If that is accepted, someone with US resources might like to write a proper page. If Large-billed is just a ssp, the Savannah article needs a rewrite jimfbleak (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Avibase lists only Sibley and Monroe and the IOC as splitting them, but I see only one Passerculus at the IOC site. There's a proposal before the AOU to split the species. At this point I don't think we need a species article for Large-billed, but that might change when the AOU makes its decision, at which point we'll face the usual interesting problem of when to accept a taxonomic change. Maybe for now the article just needs a slight rewrite. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bird Songs and Sonograms

[2] This is a great resource for learning how to make Sonograms of birdsong from .wav files. The author has a collection of bird song recordings from Southern Tuscany.

His copyright notice says "Copyright(??): all recordings and sonograms have been made by the author. Everyone can freely download, copy and reproduce them. Please, if you will use this material on the Internet, insert a link to this web site. The quality and size of the sound files are obviously reduced from the original 48KHz digitized samples. If someone is interested to the original full-length samples, he/she can send a mail and I'll be happy to provide the requested file."

I've e-mailed him to ask if I can upload his files to commons - his files are .wav so I'll have to convert them to .ogg first. Do you think I should request the orginal samples?

The sonograms use a program called SeaWave which is available from this site - [3] Grantus4504 (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bird of paradise

Requested move: Bird of paradise (disambiguation) → Bird of paradise. Please read and contribute to survey here. --Una Smith (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds of Paradise (2)

I have made a more request to move the page "Birds of Paradise" to "Bird of paradise". Headings are generally the singular form. Discussion started at Talk:Birds of Paradise. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Newbie question: Hairy Woodpecker

I hope this gets put into the correct location.

In the photo gallery for the Hairy Woodpecker, images #1, 2, and 4 are suspect. Read my coments on the page to see the research I've done (basically pestering other people), but at the very least, they are proving to be questionable enough to NOT make good reference photos.

ThanksVulture19 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at them and thought "Downy", so I think you are right about removing them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In 4 & 5, the edge tail feathers look to be plain white, which would be Hairy rather than the barred feathers of the Downy. I've uploaded another photo of a Hairy Woodpecker that I took in Vermont in 2007 Grantus4504 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Northern Bald Ibis.

Thanks for all the help that edged this to its gold star jimfbleak (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, it is a great article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That is fine, but I do not know how it got there without giving the standard deviations and p values to explain the statistics of beak length. Do you need any help with the statistics? Snowman (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
On that basis, no bird featured articles would get through, since all give measurements without SDs and other statistical data. I wouldn't put it in the main table anyway, since it makes it even more cluttered, esp with another set of the ridiculous US conversions, but a footnote would do no harm if you want to add something. You don't need to put in every possible fact for FA, and to do so would detract from readability. The table is referenced, so anyone wanting the fine detail can check it out. jimfbleak (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And how on earth can it pass without the most important details - http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ebisearch/search.ebi?db=nucleotideSequences&t=Geronticus+eremita - I just have to have it when I go birding with my DNA sequencer ;) Shyamal (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mamo

Could you take a look on that page?, the genus information (Drepanis) its in the history, but now it is a disambiguation page. Thanks --Erfil (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Very fast! Thanks :) --Erfil (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms

I suggest that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, we should be hitting 50 FAs soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, to get the ball rolling, I have updated the Collaboration page to see which folks are most enthusiastic for. Also, if anyone can help out at Rufous-crowned Sparrow which is on hold at GAN that would be great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tit-hylia

The Sunbird asked me for some input on that guy. Here we go:


Been working on the Penduline tits and I was wondering about the placement of that particular little African anomaly. It gets thrown into Cettiidae based (or at least cited by) Sefc 2003, but the paper, while mentioned in the 2008 HBW treatment, doesn't seem to have convinced the author (who called for more DNA studies and refers to teh Green Hylia as "unrelated"). You've often commented on the reliability of papers in the past, any thoughts on this one? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not found anything on it beyond the Sefc study. But it is actually the Zoologica Scripta supertree that places the hylias next to the Cettiidae.
Check out Fig. 2 in theSefc paper - tits and kinglets stand SO apart! Fits their phylogenetic distinctness. I wonder what is what in the outgroup; a petroica would have been nice to see there too. Parus seems the more radically autapomorphic of the two oddballs, as Regulus is closer to the common "Corvida" - basal Passerida mishmash. And it is really a pity that Remiz is not marked.
They do a nice case of falsification (I'd like to see this more often in phylogenetic studies; in my experience it is incredibly powerful) and narrow it down a bit:

[P]lacements of the Pholidornis/Hylia clade in our analyses included sister relationships with Cisticolidae, Acrocephalus, Phylloscopus, or a clade comprising Phylloscopus and Aegithalos. None of our analyses grouped Pholidornis and Hylia with the remizid Anthoscopus, as proposed on behavioural grounds.

What they do is suggest quite confidently that the (two) hylias are a monophyletic group. They might be considered a distinct family (cf. the Donacobius), and perhaps more so as a few strange "warblers" from their native regions remain unassessed IIRC while the hylias are not "African warblers" (crombecs et al).
Coming back to Fig. 2: they differ much, and seem to have evolved divergently in that respect. But note that neither is particularly close to Parus.
Regarding the cladograms: Parus is highly autapomorphic in both. Remizidae "does not want to be" in Sylvioidea sensu stricto. Note also the "odd couples" Regulus and Panurus, Phylloscopos and Aegithalos, Sylvietta and Anthoscopus with their laughable support dragging everything around them down whenever they stick in some clade. And it seems rather likely that to some respect Acrocephalus is a less radical version of Parus - note Locustella sitting around alone and forlorn, and lowering the support of its hood.
Now,
The "Hyliota as a lost lineage" paper finds Hylia outside Cettiidae, in the 'hood of Phylloscopus and Aegithalos in the combined tree, with no hope for internal structure but OK support. The ND2 tree clades Aegithalos strongly with Sylvia - where we can be almost certain that it does not belong (no other data suggestst that IIRC).
The "African endemics span the tree" paper agrees except for Phylloscopus, but even that it cannot rule out. Support for the three (cettiids, hylias, bushtits) as clade is entirely OK. They find somewhat weaker but still quite good support for neither acrocephalids nor cisticolida being in any respect closer to them than other sylvioids.
Now, taking "Phylogeny and classification of the avian superfamily Sylvioidea"...
10 bucks says the problems with Acrocephalus in Sefc et al are resolved if you add one more megalurid, a Malagasy warbler and the Donacobius - perhaps just the Donacobius would be enough already to vastly improve resolution across the entire sylvioid tree. Because the Sylvioidea paper is quite confident that the Donacobius is what ties megalurids and acrocephalids together (despite it being autapomorphic and convergent with the swallows in cyt B).
They find a phylloscopid+bushtit + cettiid clade in the combined dataset, but with low support. The cettiids in particular stand somewhat apart.
They find not even weak support for these 3 families being a clade close to Acrocephalus and the cisticolids.
So I conclude:
  • The two hylias are a monophyletic lineage.
  • The only taxa that do not strongly refuse to clade with the hylias in multiple analyses are the phylloscopids, the cettiids and the bushtits.
  • Among these, there is some tentative grounds to include the hylias with the cettiids provisionally. But methinks it is not good enough for Wikipedia yet to say it's so without "(but see text)" or so. It needs to be tested against by trying to "draw" the hylias out of that group with any robustly-supported sylvioid family that might make sense...
  • because these four do not seem to form a robust clade, instead being part of the mushy basal radiation of sylvioids. Among all those main lineages, large and small, of sylvioids, the bushtits and either cettiid or phylloscopid "warblers" might have perhaps 5 years more of shared history than all the others (which in evolutionary time is less than the time most genera exist).
  • In fact, Sefc et all cautiously suggest that the most appropriate treatment might be to resurrect Hyliidae Bates, 1930. And I cannot say the slightest bit against that. In any case, Hyliidae would go into synonymy of Cettiidae in the present state of things.
Thus, the simplest solution would be to follow HBW - with the caveat emptor that the hylias are quite plausibly about equidistant from cettiids and either or both phylloscopids or bushtits, in which case Hyliidae would be valid. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, wow! Thanks. Strangely enough, I recall my field guide to East African birds saying there was something odd going on with the Green Hylia. It made me take note when I saw one in Uganda. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably they were referring to the fact that (as per Svec) the Tit-hylia behaves unlike any Sylvioidea, but like Parmoptila and weaverbirds. Where did they pick that up? It is interesting to know (also fide Svec) that they were initially called "Tit-weaver", placed in the (very real and robustly verified) Parmoptila-Nigrita clade and like to associate with weaverbirds and estrildids.
So they basically have the mind of a "finch" stuck in the body of a "tit"-like "warbler".
But they sing like Sylvioida sensu stricto.
And FWIW, the original hylia (the ancestor of the lineage) looked probably much like a Phylloscopus: the Green Hylia seems to retain many plesiomorphic traits in that respect. So in the large scheme of things, phylloscopids are apparently the most ancient "Old world warblers" as regards their "jizz". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (12)

Positive. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Cropped version of the original also uploaded. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A member of the nominate group. • Rabo³ • 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
New image placed in article infobox. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Pukeko it is jimfbleak (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Porphyrio porphyrio -NewZealand-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this imply it is the subspecies Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus? Snowman (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes jimfbleak (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree Giant Kingfisher jimfbleak (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:Megaceryle_maxima_-Zimbabwe-8.jpg on commons. Cropped version used in article infobox. Are there any opinions on subspecies for image description? Snowman (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Should be nominate M. m. maxima in Zimbabwe jimfbleak (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks pretty normal to me. Light and colours (red/blue balance) just a bit messed up, but nothing too serious. • Rabo³ • 07:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Either Amazona dufresniana, or Amazona rhodocorytha, will check later tonight for exact species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Amazona rhodocorytha. dufressianan does not have extensive red. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Amazona rhodocorytha -RSCF-4a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Amazona auropalliata. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Amazona auropalliata (blue mutant) -cage-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You were right to doubt that's a Cactus Wren. I believe it's a House Finch. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Male Greater Bird of Paradise. • Rabo³ • 07:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Paradisaea apoda (male) -KL Bird Park-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Southern Masked Weaver Ploceus velatus jimfbleak (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ploceus velatus -on branch -Tanzania-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bolding scientific names...

In case anyone has any strong feeling one way or the other, they're taking a "straw poll" over at WP:Tree of Life as to whether scientific names should be bolded the first time they occur in an article about a biological entity. Any setting of policy that results could impact the project (albeit in a very minor way), so chime in if you're interested... MeegsC | Talk 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Faintly reminiscent of the discussion we had about whether we should do Dodo (Birdie gonie) or Dodo, Bird gonie. I wonder if the theology wikiprojects argue about angels and pinheads. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol... I must say, it's a real pleasure to be involved in a project where most "disagreements" are settled as amicably as they are here; it certainly doesn't seem to be the case elsewhere. MeegsC | Talk 00:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I prefer parentheses to commas for scientific names after common names, mainly because there are so many commas everywhere else I think it is refreshing to spice up the various punctuation. I used to bold scientific names...but forgot after a while. No strong feelings one way or t'other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic and won't impress the Canadians

I've taken my camera outside jimfbleak (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The church looks picturesque. I might straighten the photograph when I have the time. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ID help please

Unknown Bird

Hi, I was recently birding in the Meehan Range area in Southern Tasmania when I came across this quite unique looking robin, any help with an ID would be greatly appreciated, Flying Freddy (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I should probably add that unlike the usual suspects for red breasted robins (scarlet and flame) this guy's plumage was a remarkable shade of orange.Flying Freddy (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a female Scarlet to me Freddy [[4]] but could be a Flame. Aviceda talk 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the oranger colour reminds me of flame..incomplete male moult??? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
In some North American birds, such as the Scarlet Tanager and the House Finch, the male's red plumage is occasionally replaced by orange. I wonder whether this can happen in your hemisphere. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Horned Coot

South America is not on my radar but a chance finding of Postilla (http://www.archive.org/details/postilla150peab) led to me to upgrade this article. Quite fascinated to learn that this bird makes an island using a ton of pebbles and then nests on it. Hope we have some South Americans in this group. Shyamal (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulo Burti Boubou

Needs to be merged with a special section for the saga. Shyamal (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just created an article about the Somali Boubou. But it needs information about its biology, habitat, and several other characteristics. --Melly42 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Crescent Honeyeater

Crescent Honeyeater is picture of the day. Unfortunately the article says see: Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus. Can these two pages be merged? How do you make Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus redirect to Crescent Honeyeater? Grantus4504 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just done a redirect which is very easy: #redirect [[Crescent Honeyeater]] --Melly42 (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :D Grantus4504 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Category:Birds articles needing attention?

Anyone care to comment on the scope of this category and its intended purpose? This is in relation to Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke's inclusion on it, and some related discussion at User talk:69.209.78.94.

Do biographical articles requiring work on their bird-related content belong in this cat? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. However, it is not immediately obvious to me why this particular page has been listed for attention. I would keep it in the BP Birds project, but remove it from the category "Birds article needing attention". Generally speaking, I am not sure what this category is for, because there are lots of other ways of listing problems on pages, and I would nominate the category for deletion. Snowman (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Participant listing

What does everyone think about me going through the participants list and removing anybody who hasn't edited anywhere on Wikipedia in the past six months? (Or should I make it a year?) I've removed those who've put a "Retired" notification on their user pages, but many just seem to drop off the face of the earth! Having just sent out a zillion newsletters—some to people who don't appear to be active anymore—I'm particularly conscious of how many there are now. MeegsC | Talk 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Perhaps we could have a retired section? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it would be prudent to write a message on user pages with explanation, saying that as they do not appear to be active they have been removed from mailing list and WP Bird membership list, and that they may be reinstated on request. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the WP Birds main page (and/or membership page) should state that members who have not been active for six months (or one year) will be removed from the list, but may be reinstated on request. Alternatively, they could be placed in a linked subpage called something like "WP Bird members who have not been active for at least six months" As this would be a new policy, I suggest that a relevant notice is posted on the main page (and/or membership page) for one month prior to removing (or listing on "inactive for six months subpage") anyone who has not announced that they have retired. This is in the interests of openness. Also, I think that there should be a consensus on this before it is rolled out, and ideally there would be more than five people expressing opinions. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I certainly agree that we should state any change in "policy" (if we do end up choosing to change it) on the main page and also in at least one newsletter. And I like Sabine's idea of making a separate "retired member" section; people could just move themselves back to the active member section if they start editing on Wikipedia again. Basically, the only reason I even brought this up is because hand-delivered this month's newsletters last night after waiting for more than a week in the hopes that one of the several bot owners I contacted would have time to do it automatically. As I went through the users, I found that many haven't been active on Wikipedia (let alone the project) in many months—and I'm only suggesting we remove them if they haven't been active on Wikipedia as a whole (i.e. not if they've just chosen to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia recently). In reality, it doesn't really matter whether or not they stay listed as members of the project; delivery of the newsletter is the only time we contact them anyway, and that's generally done via bot. However, the current list does make it appear that we have many more members than we actually do—perhaps suggesting to potential editors who are trying to decide where to direct their efforts that there are other projects more in need of their services! MeegsC | Talk 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if other WP projects have as many inactive members. Does WP:birds bite new editors? Snowman (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, these editors haven't been active anywhere on Wikipedia; they've left not just our project but any and all projects that they were members of. As for other projects, I know I got dropped by WP:Novels after not editing on their project for several months (and without any notification from that project, I might add). And WP:MilHist regularly prunes members. (I know about that one because I normally use the same bot as they do for newsletter delivery.) So no, I don't think it's anything we're doing "wrong". I think a lot of people are caught up in an initial interest, which quickly dies. But that's just a guess! MeegsC | Talk 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with what MeegsC and Snowman are suggesting. I think it would be good to let the 'retirees' know; it might prompt a couple to come back and do something. Maias (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_30&oldid=417202923"