Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Nestoridae and thick-billed parrot: GA?

Ok, what do Nestoridae and thick-billed parrot need before either can go to GA? Discussions started at talk pages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of Nestoridae. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have left comments on the talk pages. The bird articles as a genre seem much too short. Despite having some excellent scientific references as compared to other TOL wikiprojects, I get the impression that information in the wiki itselfappears to be added skimpily. A more detailed and comprehensive article is better for wikipedia and easier to push to GA and FA. AshLin (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken image

Someone has pointed out (on the article's talk page) that the infobox image at White-necked Heron (taken at the RBG, Sydney) is not of that species. Looks more like an immature Darter to me. Maias (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good pick up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Importance and class listing

Can we have on this page (I ask as I do not know how this is done) a chart similar to what Volcanoes project has done.

We already have it on the Assessment page - at the bottom. Maias (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; ">{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Volcanoes articles by quality statistics}}</div>

Spoken articles for TOL - how to speak a phylogeny chart?

Should phylogeny charts be read aloud for spoken articles? I have initiated a thread on TOL here. Request your inputs please. AshLin (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting as assessment

This project has an assessment department where people can request rating of a page. This is useful for editors who have worked on a page and might want to request a independent opinion. Anyone can list articles for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. It seems to me that this has been underused, but there is a need for independent assessments, so perhaps a number of assessors (anyone can rate an article upto the B grade) will look to see if there are any requests for article assessment. Of course, there are separate formal process of assessment for articles to gain GA grade and over. Snowman (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have most often graded my own up to B class quite happily, as it is just a guide anyway, and have no problem with anyone changing any grades I may have made. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking for the wiki guidelines on making assessments, but I have not found it. Personally speaking, I think that it may be ok to self-grade up to a Start, when an article is clearly not a Stub. I think that a more active "assessment department" would save editors potential embarrassment of self-grading higher than a Start class. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean about not finding guidelines, these are fairly straightforward I thought: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Assessment#Quality_scale. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is the classification system. I was referring to a guideline (I recall) which recommends that an editor should not grade an article that they have done a lot of work on, but I could not find it a few days ago. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject biography has (or had) an active "assessment department", and personally speaking, I think it is very useful; not only to have an independent assessment, but also to read the comments of other assessors showing many editors how to grade articles, and also how to write better articles lessor than GA. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I was also wondering the same thing about self-grading out of the stub class. I have worked on so many articles that are stub class and that I feel are no longer stubs, but I wouldn't feel right about changing the class unless that is specifically an acceptable practice. What does everyone else think? speednat (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think in general it is a good idea to avoid rating a major or lengthy article to which one has contributed most of the content, style and layout. However, I have certainly begun an article and, after a certain arbitrary point, mainly length, have upgraded to start before nominating for DYK. So, at that basic stub > start transition, I do not have a problem with it. Maias (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem with people grading articles that they worked on. It isn't like other people can't change the grade if they don't agree. And I certainly don't see a problem with moving articles from stub to start class. The whole grading from start to B is somewhat subjective really anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I took advantage of the rating system when I was expanding family articles that were listed as stubs, but otherwise I've been ignoring it for at least a couple years. When I did de-stub, I didn't change the rating, because someone (Snowman?) had suggested it wasn't a good idea to do that yourself. (Eventually S.'s S. happened on them, as he too was de-stubbing family articles.) Speednat, you can use that method or request assessments. Are the people signed up on our assessment team watching the request page? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not implicate me when you are not sure. I recall a grading discussion over a GA, but not stubs. Snowman (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I might have been misremembering that discussion (about Crimson-collared Tanager, coincidentally mentioned today), or it might not have been you at all. I'll say in my defense that I don't usually mind, still less feel "implicated", when people think I might have made a suggestion that I don't remember making (though I do point it out). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would ask you to strike through the implication, which you report that you might have misremembered or that "it might not have been you at all". I do not recall such a discussion with you regarding Start class articles. Snowman (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Landmark! Black Drongo is 100th recognised content thingy!

Congrats to all...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on some articles I had noticed - be nice to get Crimson-collared Tanager back to GA (where it once was), also Parrot is developing fairly nicely adn would be a great article to get to some form of Recognised status..Cockatoo I still have some stuff to add and others are welcome to join in...I juist noticed Gray Jay is actually quite meaty too. And I am sure Jim will be trying to spruce up Tree Sparrow for FAC... ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated Crimson-collared Tanager for GA when standards were much less demanding than they are now, and the reviewer was probably more accepting than most even at the time. So I don't attach any importance to its being formerly a GA. Anyway, I don't have any sources for improving it. However, if you don't like having articles on the FGA list, I guess that's as good a reason as any to work on something. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Heck, you never know. I find I get a warm inner glow from sprucing up something which someone else has done before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A landmark. 100 articles at about 1% of bird articles is better than the wiki average of about 0.3% (1 in 300). There are about 10,000 recognised content articles on the wiki of 2.8 million articles approx. I note that this the Crimson-collared Tanager article is now a Start class. Snowman (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, according to our latest cleanup listing, the project has slightly more than 14000 articles (i.e. those with the BirdTalk template on their talk page); that means that about 0.7% of our articles are recognized content. But hey, that's still double the wiki average — which is certainly something worth celebrating! :) MeegsC | Talk 14:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I underestimated the number of bird articles. Snowman (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ID?

File:Unidentified 2 by Docku.jpg, File:Unidentified 1 by Docku.jpg


Pls help me identify this bird. was taken in Eastern USA. --Docku: What's up? 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

American Robin :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --Docku: What's up? 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
To tidy up these commons images need renaming. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Birds of Pakistan

can 92.0.147.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edits be reviewed? They are adding the category Birds of Pakistan and while the Spotted Owlet might be correct I doubt they all are.

Two points here
  • for Europe, there is a clear policy that birds are only listed for the continent, and tags for individual countries are removed. I'm not sure that we have a similar policy for Asia as a whole or for South Asia. If not, the tag should stay until a consensus position is agreed
  • If the tag is wrong, just remove it anyway
jimfbleak (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Other than the snowy owl I not sure if any are wrong or right. And of course it will turn out that the ookpik also resides in Pakistan. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Snowy Owl is on our List of birds of Pakistan, but that doesn't seem to distinguish vagrants from regular species. Could a Snowy Owl have wandered that far south at one time? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Steve Pryor of the Oriental Bird Club associated Philippine Records Committee e-mailed me to say the answer is yes. In addition to references to the Snowy Owl's tendency to wander south in winter, he mentioned:
""Occurs: Vagrant NW Pakistan; one specimen (my note: one skin taken) and several others seen at same time [Baker(¹)].
"Op.cit: Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide, Rasmussen & Anderton, Vol. 2, P. 242."

(¹) Baker, E.C.S. 1922-1930. Fauna of British India. Birds. Second edition. Vols. 1-8. Taylor & Francis. London.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The List of birds of Pakistan is one of the many country lists that needs someone to add information on which birds are only accidental, among other things. I did fix somebody's well-intentioned mention of provincial birds, at least.
By the way, this isn't the first time I've been glad I put my unmunged e-mail address on my user page, for people who would rather contact me by e-mail than on my talk page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This list like the list of birds of India was generated from Avibase and they both had numerous errors. I have run through the India list and have added inline citations where needed. The Pakistan list needs someone with access to sources to check carefully, I just took out Dicaeum erythrorhynchos and Sitta frontalis which need citations for occurrence. Shyamal (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I checked just Sitta frontalis for now. The Ripley Guide; the Family monograph by Harrap & Quinn; and the HBW-12 do not have it as occuring in Pakistan. This may have leaked into the Avibase lists from the grey-literature of ornithology, i.e., bird trip lists from birders not well versed in field identification, or it may have been one of the false records from: [1]. A suggestion. Anyone taking up the Pakistan list should contact one of the country organs in India that do keep the bird records since a lot of the initial bioassays within Pakistan were done during the British occupation, therefore, they have probably been bequeathed to these organs within India. By the way, this exists: [2]. I doubt that I will buy it as I already have so many other Field Guides covering the region.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Dicaeum erythrorhynchos. I can place it as far as western Uttar Pradesh, however, I could find no confirmed records for Pakistan. Consulted: The Ripley Guide; Cheke & Mann Family monograph; HBW-13.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same Manchester IP, personally I would support deletion of such categories, since one cannot provide citations unlike in a list. Shyamal (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Have CfD tagged the category. Shyamal (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Plucking post

This newly created article lacks reliable references and there seems to be no clear indication of whether this term is well defined or widely used. It appears rather casual in usage and although Google scholar produces some hits, other similar combinations such as "feeding perch" produce a lot more. Shyamal (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe any useful information in it could be merged into Bird of prey. Maias (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers for reading 'Bird'?

The script for spoken article Bird is now ready. It is in four parts as per the following scheme:

  • Part 1 - introduction and contents.
  • Part 2 - section one - evolution and taxonomy.
  • Part 3 - sections 2 to 4 which deal with the topics of distribution, anatomy, physiology and behaviour.
  • Part 4 - last part and contains sections 5 to 8 which deal with ecology, relationship with humans, economic importance and conservation.

Would any one like to participate in reading out the article?

AshLin (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Eos (genus)

Eos (genus) might make a DYK, but I have not thought of a hook. It is still only 110 words of prose. I have illustrated it with images on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit. Some on genetic relationships to other lory genera may be good. Agree hook is hard - maybe just listing the species as members as they are all red and blue and might sound funny altogher...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
A hook might turn up. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
... and, incidentally, I think that you need to contribute a bit more to be named as a significant contributor in the DYK nomination. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will see what I can do (I am presuming you mean me) - I am impressed at the growth of the article, and I think it is actually not too far off GA even maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I had to nominate it at this juncture and I could not wait any longer; although, it would be even better with phylogeny and a map. I hope that the editors who expressed an interest in adding these topics will be able to find time to make more contributions to nudge the article towards GA, even after DYK (pass or fail). Snowman (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand - Kim van der Linde has the phylogeny material and is best placed to add it - we can nudge him. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
... and User Sabine's Sunbird might be able to find the time to make a multicoloured map (see Eos talk page) Snowman (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits noted, so User Casiber named as additional significant contributor to DYK nomination. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


eg...that the colourful genus Eos contains the Red-and-blue, Violet-necked, Red,Blue-streaked, Black-winged, and Blue-eared Lories?

I think all the colours sound funny when juxtaposed like that - also might get some input on all the spp pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There might be something interesting in speciation, evolution, or conservation issues. Snowman (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Why would the species be named Eos after the Greek word for "dawn"? What it the connection? Is there a hook here? Snowman (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
My Latin Names Explained doesn't explain :( speednat (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It is greek - I have a greek lexicon. I agree that it is a weird derivation. Would be good to get a botanical book which clarifies why the genus is called such. More later on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
PS: Have added some classical taxonomic relationships - be good to find some molecular or morphological ones as well, also there is nothing else in my ancient greek lexicon that Eos means apart from 'dawn', 'sunrise' and hence 'eastern' (i.e. from where the sun comes from). I suspect the last is why - as they are from the far east of indonesia, but would need to find a ref for it.
There are hints on Google that it's because of the red plumage and rosy-fingered Dawn, but I didn't find anything we could cite. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a brief mention here if that is sufficient. Maias (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Eos.jpg is an image of Eos the goddess of dawn on the wiki article page Eos, which is painting with red wings, but text refers to white wings. Without guessing, I do not know how this fits in with these genus of red lories. I have not found any citations relevant to this. Snowman (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found and explanation, added it and cited it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will add phylogeny as I have all articles.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a bit to the description, citing Rosemary Low's 1978 book. There is a mention of birds of the genus having a musky odour, which might be useful for a DYK hook, though the ref is offline. Maias (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Brilliant idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but there might be something more interesting for the general reader than a musky smell. I wonder if a hook about the name Eos, if sourced, or phylogeny would be more interesting. However, in-the-round, I think it might be more topical for the hook to be something about the decline in the genus over the last 100 years. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now created a stub article for Rosemary Low. Maias (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
An interesting new stub. I did not know she was British. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I threw in another section about their biology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • DYK nomination with hook: Did you know ... that all six species of the genus Eos of parrots are native to only Indonesia? If you think it is not very interesting, please nominate alternative hooks, Snowman (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Not 100

I hate to rain on the parade, but we've actually only got 99 FA/FL/GA thingys (as Cas would call them). There was a miscount on our GAs—we've only got 35—which I discovered when working on the April newsletter. So we still need one more to reach the fabled 100. Watch this space! MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bother. OK, you can nominate Red-throated Diver for GAN then...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Other candidates I see on the horizon are Eos (genus), which looks very promising. I can be a bit forgiving in assessing articles, so if someone else wants to give Red-throated Diver another look and reassure (or otherwise) MeegsC that'd be great. Puffin is the new collaboration, Cockatoo is well developed but I was taking a breather before adding some more material in the aviculture/bird smuggling section and I would love more material in history. Red-winged Blackbird stalled a while ago but I think is promising, and I have also been working on Macaroni Penguin (for FA sometime, the biology group got it to GA but they have finished now - I chipped in with some stuff, and felt I could make it like Emperor Penguin which I think turned out rather well), King Penguin, and Australian Magpie on and off. all input on any is welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoken articles for WP:BIRD

Hi,

I recently got interested in WP:SPOKEN. There is a great shortage of spoken articles in WP and I'm sure that is the case for BIRD too.

In fact, I recorded and placed my first spoken article from this wikiproject i.e. Bank Myna. The spoken article is here:

To be honest I had to copy edit the article for making it more readable.

Does anyone have any guidelines, cautions, tales or experiences of 'speaking' BIRD articles that I need to know about?

AshLin (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you have pointed the need for more spoken articles; although, I have no experience with speaking articles. Could you start at the beginning? Who is the target audience? How did you make your spoken article on Bank Myna? What problems did you have to overcome to record the Bank Myna article? Is there a similar shortage of articles in simple English? What are your goals? Snowman (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow! I'll tackle them out of sequence. It's easy to start the technical part - I found I was very self-conscious when it came to the speaking part.
Setup. Enough guidance is available at WP:SPOKEN to start one off on this trail. I read up their pages and most of the useful links. I used my home computer with internet and a cheap microphone. I downloaded Audacity and Levelator and installed them. I tweaked around till I learnt to record audaciously. After recording, I polished my ogg file with Levelator (just drag it onto the surperlarge icon of Levelator) and wait.
Choosing an article. I chose an article. Harmless one, in case the recording really sucks! Bank Myna is no great shake. Short article, a bird I'm familiar with, Indian words which I am confident of pronouncing.
Preparing a script. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/Reading_Guidelines helps you to write out the text of an article. I copied out the text (not the wikitext) from the article page into Notetab Lite. I embellished it and wrote out the article in the way it would be spoken as per the reading guidelines of WP:SPOKEN. I have already deleted the Bank Myna text file so I can't load it and show it you but here's a work in progress of Ladakh. It requires some work, but not too much. Then I formatted my text file in OOorg Writer, spaced it for convenient reading and printed it. I read it aloud a couple of times, braced myself, had three false starts, hummed and hawed. Read out the article in two parts, spliced it, cleaned and replaced some slurs and mis-pronunciations and exported it as a WAV file. Polished the wave file with Levelator. Imported it into Audacity and exported it as an ogg vorbis file. Renamed it. Uploaded it as per instructions in WP:SPOKEN.
Worling with the article. I found I had to copy-edit the text of the article itself to make it readable. Surprisingly, this improves the article too, as you make normal cp-eds in addition to those for the purpose of readability. Be prepared for that. In fact, I had to request FA review for Ladakh after going over it. So, its good wikipeding for any article to have a conscientious (self-pat, pat, pat on my back) editor work to make a spoken article. It also adds a lot of value to an article to have a spoken article companion.
Problems. Yes of course. Audacity requires a little bit of scratching your head and manual reading but I was able to do this recording in a couple of hours, so I suppose its quite Okay. The WP:SPOKEN works at a gentle pace so I'm still waiting for someone to respond to my request for a review of this first attempt. But they are good people, addressing an important but neglected field in WP, so I'm patient and will wait for it but will anyway go ahead and record and sort out issues as I come across them.
Target audience? - I dunno. Visually challenged people? Podcasters? Myself? My wife (to impress her)? All of the above, I guess.
I don't hang around at Simple English so I can't say but I'm willing to bet that its not significant. If you consider that there are only 773 spoken articles which are just say 8.8% of 2459 FAs and 6520 GAs, and miniscule percentage of all articles, I can confidently say 'be BOLD and blather forth'. Seriously, Im looking forward to learn some new skills and have a good time.
I don't speak with much experience about this. One can't make much noise with only one article being spoken for as of now but I would love to have sound companions on the long journey home.;-)
I hope all of that answers your questions. :-) AshLin (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

One more question: How often do you review or redo the spoken article after significant page updates? Snowman (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know. One can find out from the image history, I suppose. Or one would probably need to ask about specific experiences of others at WP:SPOKEN. One thing's for sure, your article version will very soon be superseded because of the nature of Wikipedia. This situation will differ depending on the state of the article. Anything below GA can be expected to change substantially over time. But once an article reaches higher status, the edits are probably tuning up type - referencing, rewording, style and Wikiconventions. The material does not undergo large differences unless the article was, say, short when it was declared a GA.
I'm new to podcasting. I immediately felt the experience of reading and listening are very different. The listening experience is more 'human' like listening to a person. The reading experience of wikiarticles carries with it all the baggage associated with reading. Perhaps, the need for being upto date is slightly less important in the case of spoken articles. Listening to a article is information 'streaming' past your senses. I think people have different expectations from written articles. Over time, So IMHO as long as there is not a quality change in the article or substantive change in the material, an older spoken version of the article should still be very useful to a listener, as opposed to the fact of having no version at all.
If we follow a system of recording articles systematically, we could:
  • first record FAs and GAs.
  • rerecord GAs when they become FAs.
  • rerecord FAs once they undergo FAR.
  • record new GAs and FAs as they appear.
  • record A class articles and selected B class articles.
Another valuable concept is of recording articles as per themes. Themes for birds could be 'Endangered birds', 'Bird Ecology' etc. Here you record a series of articles on a related field, irrespective of status, so as to have greater value than just a discrete set which comprises FAs and GAs. Of course all the articles of your theme should at least be B class.
Another feature of recording spoken articles, I find is that it improves the article in readability. Long sentences and difficult constructs get simplified. I did this for Bank Myna. In some cases, one may like to polish up the article to your satisfaction. I'm doing this for Ladakh before I record it. I think this is good wikipeding practice. AshLin (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

List of spoken articles relating to WP:BIRD

Here's the list of bird spoken articles. The links are to the spoken articles. Please add any that I may have left out....

* Short-beaked Echidna (Sheepish grin)

AshLin (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know they lay eggs, but echidnas aren't birds :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The list of FA Bird articles not having spoken articles are as under: · Albatross · American Black Vulture · American Goldfinch · Andean Condor · Antbird · Archaeopteryx · Arctic Tern · Bald Eagle · Barn Swallow · Bird Only the intro recorded. · California Condor · Cattle Egret · Chiffchaff · Common Blackbird · Common Raven · Common Treecreeper · Elfin-woods Warbler · Emperor Penguin · Emu · Flight feather · Greater Crested Tern · House Martin · Kakapo · King Vulture · Mourning Dove · Northern Bald Ibis · Northern Pintail · Nuthatch · Peregrine Falcon · Procellariidae · Puerto Rican Amazon · Red-backed Fairy-wren · Red-billed Chough · Red-necked Grebe · Red-tailed Black Cockatoo · Red-winged Fairy-wren · Seabird · Song Thrush · Splendid Fairy-wren · Superb Fairy-wren · Tawny Owl · Turkey Vulture · Variegated Fairy-wren · White-breasted Nuthatch · White-winged Fairy-wren · Willie Wagtail

I removed Suffolk Punch from this list, since it's an article about a breed of horse. ; ) MeegsC | Talk 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Bird articles

The list of GA Bird articles not having spoken articles are as under:

British Birds Rarities Committee – Rasmussen, Pamela C. – Bird collections – Aerodramus – American Crow – American Robin – Australian Ringneck – Bugun Liocichla – Crested Shelduck – Djibouti Francolin – Dodo – Dusky Woodswallow – European Robin – Flammulated Flycatcher – Golden White-eye – Great Spotted Kiwi – Greater Yellow-headed Vulture – Hooded Crow – Huia – Indigo Bunting – Kereru – Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture – Macaroni Penguin – Northern Cardinal – Osprey – Red-tailed Hawk – Rock Pigeon – Rufous-crowned Sparrow – Storm-petrel – White-eyed River Martin – Wood Thrush 

AshLin (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bird articles in the 'List of bird articles all languages should have'

Taken from meta.wikimedia.org.

AshLin (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Statistics for a specific bird article

A request has been placed here. AshLin (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoken Bird Workgroup?

Anyone game to give a hand to reduce the backlog? AshLin (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (16)

Nice photo of a Red-winged Blackbird...one that was being worked up for GA at one point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Agelaius phoeniceus -standing on wood-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. It is a Bewick's Wren. An adult. Without a specific location, I won't attempt a race collocation. There are four known races ranging in California (5 including the probably extinct San Clement I. race leucophrys).Steve Pryor (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added that it is an adult to the description on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a Siskin, but the head pattern is a bit weak for an adult male - my guess would be a young male, unless anyone thinks differently jimfbleak (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Siskin is a dab page. Do you mean a Eurasian Siskin, Citril Finch, or one of the other siskins? The flilkr sets indicate it may have been photographed in Marbella or Sierra Nevada, Spain. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Jim, it is an adult male, winter plumage. It is always better to adjectivize the rather collective substantive "Siskin", since it is used for a wide range of Carduelis species. This is, better, an adult male, basic (i.e., winter plumage) Carduelis spinus - Eurasian Siskin.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Carduelis spinus -Spain-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I think a female (juvenile) Common Grackle. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that or possibly Rusty Blackbird? Maias (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This appears to me to be a first basic female (immature), Quiscalus mexicanus prosopidicola (Great-tailed Grackle). Since this has caused confusion it is perhaps cogent that I mention why. First the case of eliminating the sympatric Euphagus (both the Brewer's, and the Rusty Blackbird do range). The first thing to look at is the bill strength. This bill is much too strong (i.e.thick) respect to the finer, more sharply cuneate bills of either Euphagus. There are other differences,e.g., the females and juveniles of Brewer's Blackbird have dark irides. The juveniles of both sexes of Rusty Blackbird do have pale eyes, however the immature male bird has black lores, and demonstrates irregular squamation ventrally (i.e., the feather tips are darker and make it appears as if there was fine transverse barring; the juvenile female also has this transverse squamation but more visible only near the vent. As far as the three sympatric Quiscalus (the Grackles), we can immediately eliminate Quiscalus major (Boat-tailed Grackle) since the birds ranging in Georgia never have pale eyes (N.B. race torreyi does have pale eyes but its' range is limited to the Atlantic Seaboard and gets no further south than N Florida); as for the Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) the race ranging on coastal Georgia is the nominate quiscula and it is sometimes called the "Florida Grackle". All of the juvenile forms of both sexes have dark irides, and are uniformly dark brownish. For this explanation I have consulted the Family monograph - New World Blackbirds, Jaramillo & Burke (1999).Steve Pryor (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Great-tailed Grackle is not found in Georgia, but its cousin, the Boat-tailed Grackle is, and you are right, it was not the Common Grackle. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kim, saw your posting second. Don't worry. You have just been witness to how someone that very rarely ever flubs one, at least not any more, can totally drop the ball on a rather easy identification! It happens even to those that are used to doing a lot of them.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I wouldn't argue with you about birds, but I think you're confused about American geography. Georgia is north of N. Florida, and torreyi is the race of Boat-tailed expected there. Also, despite my partial color-blindness, this bird appears to me to have the "cinnamon" crown of female Boat-tailed rather than the "black or gray-brown" crown of female Great-tailed (Birds of North America (subscription required), quoting Jaramillo and Burke), though BNA on Boat-tailed quotes Selander and Giller 1961 as saying that characters other than iris color are unreliable. Finally, Great-tailed would be a real surprise in Georgia. So I think this is a Boat-tailed Grackle, Quiscalus major torreyi. By the way, this appears to be the same bird and also worth uploading. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Jerry, please do argue, when I am obviously wrong. Don't worry about my presumed sensitivities, I want the truth on the birds I identify, and immediately abandon my position when my position is obviously so mistaken. I can tell you from experience that anyone seriously good at bird identifications has long learned to put their ego aside, rather than make an initial mistake and proceed to perorate a lost cause by trying to fit any given bird to their original mistaken identification - there are a lot of people that do this - I am not one of them. I was looking at a wrong range map, and I was sticking Georgia on the Gulf Coast somewhere near Louisiana, the reasons for this are unfathomable. I have forgotten my geography - been over thirty years since I have lived in the States. I will leave my above total screw-up as an admonishment to how even people used to vetting bird identifications, and I have been doing them for fifteen years, is not infallible! With the exclusion of my "dark horse" candidate, a non-starter from the get-go, then you are absolutely right, the only possible is a major torreyi. The Jaromilla does not mention if the immature forms have a dark iris in this race, however, I suspect that they do since the juveniles of the other Quiscalus sp. that wind up as adults with pale irides, start out with them being dark (brown). Therefore, I would suspect that this particular bird is an adult female. Good for you at catching me out! You are right.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm relieved that you agree, Steve. By the way, do you know about the Unidentified birds category at Commons? Lots of images there that need to be identified. If you want to do that, ideally you would make yourself a Commons login, which can be the same as your Wikipedia login. I'm certainly curious about this raptor. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Jerry, I took a look at the Unidentified Birds on Commons. Most of that stuff is just total junk. I did a few, however there are a lot of real marginal views of birds for which there are simply no locations, and no context. It is probably better to search for stuff on flick. I am already one of the administrators of the Bird Field Guide Group there (my moniker on flickr = cuckooroller)and already field many of the ID requests on their help line in particular for birds of the oriental, australasian, and afrotropical avifaunal regions, though I am starting to get better also with the neotrops. Strangely, I am probably least proficient in the birds of my country of origin, the USA. It should be a requirement for those that submit birds to Commons for identification, that they include the location of the shot. It is of extreme importance, at least, if we are talking about birds shot in a natural context, and not in a zoo.
I agree with you so much that I recently suggested at Commons that there be such a requirement for all wildlife pictures, or at least a suggestion in the upload form. Two people said it was a good idea, and there was no other response. Too bad.
Yes, there's always a lot of junk in the Unidentified Birds category, but I've occasionally found some good things there (as you did). I'm not trying to talk you into going through it, though—just letting you know about it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Raptor: The dorsal view does look like an adult female spilogaster, however if the ventral view is of the same bird, and the photographer so affirms, then I am confused. I have problems with making this into the underwing of spilogaster. The species I like most for this underwing would be this: [3]Steve Pryor (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who found that mystifying. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Will try and give it a whack, but don't expect miracles. We are looking at something that is juvenile, and descriptions are often not that great.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I realise that it is difficult, but these sort of difficult-to-find details might be particularly useful on the wiki. There is an opportunity to add a difficult-to-find illustration of a juvenile hornbill from flickr. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Buceros hydrocorax, a juvenile.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
In case you wonder, I have a nodding acquaintance with Tagalog, and was able to determine that the shot was taken here: [4]. Armed with this information, and considering that there is no importation of exotic juvenile Hornbills (since they live in walled-up cavities for much of their early life), and knowing the characteristics of the possibly ranging Philippine species, in final analysis, it was not very difficult to figure out which of them this was.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you mentioned that. I am aware that with some parrot genera there is a possibility of hybrids in zoo populations to be considered. Are hornbill hybrids rare? Snowman (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, relatively rare. To all accounts, not too vital when they do occur. Certainly, naturally occuring hybrids are rare unless you are speaking of certain not too distantly in the past differentiated species such as some of the insular species of Penelopides in the Philippines. However, they would not encounter each other unless in a promiscuous captive setting. I do recall reading of a mixed pair in Singapore. If I recall correctly it was a nesting record of a female Rhinoceros Hornbill (the only one on the Island!) and a male Oriental Pied-Hornbill. I think that the female Rhinoceros was captured and efforts are now underway to genetically determine for her a suitable companion of the same race.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Bulbuls as a group are not usually sexually dimorphic, including this species. This is an adult. This is about as much as you can say about it.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Pycnonotus sinensis -Hong Kong-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Snow, very preliminarily, from memory and without books, not genus Accipiter just on general jizz, i.e., relatively short tail, plump, short body, etc. My snap impression is that this is a juvenile Buteo lineatus.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
After looking at BNA, I agree completely, and we have nothing like this spectacular shot of a Red-shouldered Hawk. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to say it's a juvenile (as Steve said) of the West Coast subspecies, Buteo lineatus elegans—the picture was taken in California, and it has the "more barred than streaked" underparts and the pied flight feathers and black tail with narrow white bands rather than the uniformly pale underwings and dark brown tail with light bands of eastern juveniles. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Buteo lineatus -San Jose -California-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Snow, for me this is a pale juvenile Buteo jamaicensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm convinced. Judging by where it was taken, Buteo jamaicensis calurus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Buteo jamaicensis (Juvenile) -flying-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


It could be, but the light on the crown and the general fuzzyness don't help. My HBW plate also has this species having a bit of an eye ring, which is lacking in the photo. A location would help. Dominic is usually pretty good with his identifications, isn't he? And he does go to Mexico lots. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Confirm this. Certainly it always helps to have the locations attached to each and every photo. This photo looks to have been uploaded in one batch on the same day, and makes up part of a set Bird of North America, so we might presume that the author was shooting in SE Arizona. The presumption supported by the fact that he also has a set, Bird of Mexico, and also because I know that the other birds included in this batch, also range in SE Arizona. We are in March and this species is moving into its' breeding range (they move into the more northerly parts of the known range). This particular bird looks to be in pre-nuptial moult (the black cap is not yet well formed). An adult male, race restricta. Morphologically, there are a couple of things to help us as far as the separation from the only true confusion species, i.e., Polioptila melanura. They are, first, we can see the undertail thankfully on this bird, and we can see that the central rectrices ventrally are all white, this alone gives us the ID. If this bird was in full alternate plumage, we would be able to see that the lower black margin of the black cap would appear to be slightly thicker under the eye, and extend back in a more conspicuous manner onto the ear coverts. Steve Pryor (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not always sure of the locations of flickr photographs. Anyone can look at the flickr photostream or flickr sets to see if there is any information that places the photographs, so, as far as I can see, there is no absolute need for me to give locations for flick photographs when listing here. I should add that, when I have uploaded my own photographs to commons, I provide such information in the image description. Also, when I upload flickr photographer's images I provide the location, if it is available, in the image description. Is there any advice/guidelines on uploading images and what to put in the image description on the main WP:Bird page? Snowman (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Snow, I wasn't suggesting that it is in any way your personal responsibility to include locational information. My observation was simply really wishful thinking on my part, that a generalized "anybody" uploading photos to flickr, include locations. I realise, of course, that people upload their photos for their own personal enjoyment, and not as a prelude to somebody like me coming in and identifying their birds, and that they personally may have nothing to gain by spending time to put in this information. I receive a lot of requests for vetting ID's from people that indicate only a photo (I am speaking of I receive them on flickr, or by personal e-mail) and many times I have to write back and request that they give me the locations. It is a lot of bother when attempting to help people out with one's own limited free time. Having to dedicate time to being sort of a detective of the locations not given doesn't help obviously when one's time is already limited.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that is a good analysis. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Upoaded to File:Polioptila nigriceps -Arizona-8.jpg on commons and used in infobox on the Black-capped Gnatcatcher article, the first image on the wiki of its species. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Snow, in Delaware, it should be bromia. However, I could find no real rock solid information as to the range interface with the nominate, and bromia in NE US. Supposedly, the nominate ranges in the rather unsatisfactorily described EC and SE USA. I would consider Delaware to be in the NE of the US.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I note the importance of the location and range to your identification. Is there anything in the appearance that indicates the subspecies. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Supposedly bromia, respect to the nominate, is generally duller, more greyish on the nape, head, and upper mantle. The upper range limit of the nominate on the eastern seaboard seems to be somewhere in North Carolina. This bird, and I did look at some nominate, appears to me to be rather dull and greyish in those indicated areas.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cyanocitta cristata -Delaware-8.jpg on commons with location. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

talk talk

Meegs, I am still not sure how I am supposed to communicate personally with any one user, so I am just sticking a note for you here. I have appended a comment under your photo of Turdus nudigenis, with reference to a recent decision as to its' corrected nomenclature (i.e., the English Common Name). Source: [5]. Search the page for Turdus nudigenis, and hit next because the operative entry is the second one.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You can give him a message by clicking on the word "Talk" in his signature. Then click the "new section" tab at the top of the page. I just sent you one that way. Some people like to use something more individual than "Talk", such as Kim van der Linde's "at Venus". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I ask of you a favour - (a parrot related one)...

Could someone with more taxonomic knowledge than I please link to the newly-created Panama Amazon article in the correct place at Amazon_parrot#Classification and List of Amazon parrots? Muchos appreciated. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a subspecies according to most authoritative sources, although the species complex needs badly be revised. I will see what I can do with the amazon classification section. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A respectable account of the classification has already been listed on the Yellow-crowned Amazon article, which includes the subspeices Amazona o. panamensis, the Panama Amazon. Subspecies have not got there own row on the "List of Amazon parrots". The introduction of "List of Amazon parrots" says; The taxonomy of the Yellow-crowned Amazon (Amazona ochrocephala complex) is disputed, with some authorities listing only a single species (A. ochrocephala), and others splitting it into as many as three species (A. ochrocephala, A. auropalliata and A. oratrix), and this covers most eventualities of the current state of flux of the taxonomy, I think. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the "Panama Amazon" page is not needed and is largely a duplication of parts of the "Yellow-crowned Amazon" page, any new referenced content covered with an inline citation in the Panama Amazon page can be merged into the "Yellow-crowed Amazon" page. Snowman (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above, for the time being at least. A lot of these "common names" have been brought into use by people dealing with commerce of wild birds (usually illegally), or selling captive-bred birds (usually legally, but of sometimes dubious lineage given the tendency of psittacid aviculturists to want to experiment with crosses). Right now, Kim is correct, the complex does need revision, that however has not as yet come forth in any coherent manner. Some of the races associated presently to ochrocephala are threatened, and it would therefore behoove people to really get on the case and decide if the genetic variance of some of these presently associated to ochrocephala races might warrant elevation to full species status.
Snow, is also correct in that, at least for the present time, this particular race is still associated to a good species. The most authorative recent source, i.e., Van Remsen's SACC group say simply "a proposal is badly needed", however until such time as a generalized review gathers together all existing, or still not-existing but needed, information, then it is best to leave things as they presently are.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think the wiki has room for it as a subspecies page at the present time, and I have been editing it. Snowman (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if ochrocephala gets split another way, which seems reasonable, it will be a subspecies. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your work on the article, KvdL and SMR and thanks to everyone named above for helping to clear up my confusion... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your bringing this here. I have started looking for a photo of this parrot, but it might take a long time. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_32&oldid=1059460276"