Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Alt text

As many regulars will know, alternative text for images is now an FA criterion. When Snowman suggested adding alt text during the Ruff FAC, I was initially a bit dismissive, but it's actually very simple to do this. Although it is not binding elsewhere as far as I know, it is clearly a good idea to improve accessibility, and I would suggest that we add alt text or alt caption to all new images within the project, and particularly to prospective GAN articles. Any thoughts? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the HTML source of a page, it seems that by default, the alt text used is the same as the caption and this to me seems to fulfill the basic accessibility requirements. The style of wording of the explicit alt caption I suspect needs a guideline like this [1] Shyamal (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right about the caption being the default, but it's not necessarily sufficient for a reader with poor vision using a screen reader. For example File:Ruffnaumann.jpg has alt = A white-collared satellite male and a brown-collared territorial male are displaying to each other. Two more males are in the background, and a female is in the foreground.| Illustration of a lek by [[Johann Friedrich Naumann]] (1780-1857)]] A sighted viewer just needs the context, so the caption is fine, whereas the unsighted need to know what the content of the image is too. Or am I missing your point? BTW, the accessibility web link you gave looks useful. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about the spirit of the requirement. What I was saying was that the alt tag filled with the caption would satisfy the legal needs of Section 508 (US only) but whether that really satisfies the needs of specific audiences is not easy to determine. I would rather expect enabling technology to produce palpable textures by applying filters on the images. Shyamal (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that it takes a bit of thought to add good alt text. Some infoboxes make it possible to add alt text for the infobox image. Should the taxobox be updated for alt text too? I do not know how to write the code to add this facility. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I was just wondering that myself (taxobox images that is). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
| image_alt = in the taxobox enables an alt caption, I don't know how to code this as an automatic feature Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are right with "image1_alt", "image2_alt", and so one. I have just had a look at the source code for the taxoboxes and it is already written in, so it should work. See Template:Taxobox for documentation. "| range_map_alt =" is for the alternate text for the map. (I made a mistake of thinking "alt=" would work in taxoboxes, but "alt=" seems to apply only to infoboxes where only one image is catered for.) Snowman (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for diagram

Hello,

Can anyone provide a diagram for digestive system of a bird. It will help illustrate crop, gizzard, etc.

AshLin (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Chough

Thanks to those project members who have already made edits to this. I'm afraid I'm looking for comments now.

  • It's inevitable that this article is going to cover much the same ground as the two species' pages, but I'm trying to write it so that that it doesn't repeat too much text, and the fine detail is left to the species' articles. Ignoring the lead section, which I'll do last, is there anything that is in that should be chopped, or anything I've omitted that you feel should be added?
  • Does anyone have a source which gives data, especially on taxonomy, which isn't there already. In particular, I can't find anything which gives much more on corvid relationships than the closeness of the jackdaws and the choughs.
  • I'm trying not to reuse images that are already in the species' pages. Any thoughts on an image for the "breeding" section?

Thanks for any help, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, these'd be good to address. The Goodwin Crows of the World book does not have much more on taxonomy, one older source who felt choughs midway between nutcrackers and crows based on morphology but that was queried (and dismissed) by goodwin. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any value in putting in a table to summarise the two species and perhaps the subspecies also? Snowman (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea for species, and it would complement the species' pages. Not so sure about ssp. It would make the table much bigger, and there is little variation within each species, so not particularly useful either. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've tabulated the less important data that was not previously mentioned in the text. Does anyone know how to centre the numerical data whist keeping the items in the "Feature" column left aligned? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've done this for you, Jim. It might look better, though, if the table were narrower. All that blank space looks a bit odd! MeegsC | Talk 09:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I've reduced the width too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat to my own surprise, I've managed to get the double image into the table, which makes better use of the page width. I'd like to centre the image in its cell, but I've failed to find a way to do this. Grateful as always for markup help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the numerical size data works well in the table. I am not sure where the best place for the double image is. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

<--(outdent) I agree with Snowman; I'm not sure the image is best suited for where it's currently sitting. Perhaps it could be incorporated into the table in a different way: how about putting each picture under its respective column, and putting the text describing the differences in the space to the left? After all, you'll have more than 5 rows worth of "space"! MeegsC | Talk 13:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I read FT rules it seems that the minimum of FA's in a FT is two. Generally, this means for a three-article FT there needs to be two FAs and one GA. Snowman (talk)
Meegs, good idea, probably tomorrow before I do that. Snowman, I'll check, but if you are right, we could go for Good Topic first, and then work up Alpine Chough to FA, which is obviously possible. All the info is there, just needs polishing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criterion for animals

Hi everyone. As this week's Wikipedia Signpost reports, articles about "individual animals" are now candidates for speedy deletion if the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.. I have left comments here and I think input from other animal-related wikiproject participants would be helpful. Best regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pelican systematics

Could someone look at these edits Special:Contributions/24.46.70.28 and add citations if they are legitimate. Shyamal (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • They seem pretty damn suspicious to me. Griseipelecanus and Dalmatipelecanus generated exactly 0 hits on Google. Perhaps there is a paper coming out soon that uses these new names, but in the interim it fails on complete lack of verifability to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

List of extinct birds

As some IPs delete entries from time to time without further comment i would like to propose a consensus of which taxa should appear in this article and which not:

Many species are not listed in the IUCN Redlist but where not seen for decades. Others are only known by the type specimen, and others seem to be doubtful though there is no official treatment (e.g. BLI (for hypothecical species), SACC, Clements Checklist) which shows how to deal with them. --Melly42 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD note

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geelong_Field_Naturalists_Club Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Birds_Australia_Parrot_Association

Shyamal (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (33)

Looking at the hook tip to the bill I thought thrush and gave a wild search on google with "Lotherton" and "thrush" and what do I get. http://www.zoochat.com/504/spectacled-laughing-thrush-38977/ ! Shyamal (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a Hwamei (sensu largo). N.B., this bird has been recently split. I will give it a better look as I have time and try to determine the taxon.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It is the widespread nominate form. • Rabo³ • 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Gray (neck not blackish, cheek patch mostly white). I'll add that to the description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for identifying this as a Grey Crowned Crane. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Snow, will look when I come back to look at the Hwamei. Not even sure this is Psittacula.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Switch parakeet with parrot. • Rabo³ • 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying it is a Poicephalus robustus? Is it possible to identify the subspecies? Is Brown-necked Parrot another name for it or one of the other subspecies? Snowman (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Poicephalus robustus -Jurong Bird Park-8a.jpg. Image description probably needs amendments on common name and subspecies. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Black-chested Buzzard Eagle. • Rabo³ • 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The wiki page uses a different hypenation; Black-chested Eagle-buzzard. Uploaded to File:Geranoaetus melanoleucus -Dunrobin Castle-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the chanting goshawks. • Rabo³ • 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it a juvenile? Snowman (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I see at least one normal sized tail extension. Adult but very worn. • Rabo³ • 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am waiting to get more information. In an flickr email I just received the author told me that it is a juvenile about 3 months old and he called it a Blue-crowned. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't see any reason to doubt him as it looks just like a Blue-crowned. Don't know how fast they mature and only see one tail extension so perhaps it really is juvenile or at least not fully adult. • Rabo³ • 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
File rename under way of a juvenile Blue-crowned Racquet-tailed Parrot to File:Prioniturus discurus -juvenile-8a.jpg. Is is Racquet-tail or Racquet-tailed Parrot generally in the genus? Snowman (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
HBW omits parrot from the end of the name, as does Gill and Wright's IOC list (our two de facto standards). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Correct. No parrot. The only reason I sometimes include it is because it makes it clearer to most people what I'm speaking about. Most other languages include parrot in their name but that's irrelevant to their English name. • Rabo³ • 09:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Forshawe 2006 says "Abc-xyz Racquet-tailed Parrot". I expect some redirects to "Racquet-tail" would be useful. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right. • Rabo³ • 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Chough

I'd like to take this to GA soon, so that it will complete the set of three for a Good Topic. Any final comments or copy-editing would be welcome. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks to Maias for status ce. I've sent this to GAN now, since there's a bit of a queue and I'd like to get it through before I go on my hols in September. I ought to do some GA reviewing too, but the GAN page seemed to have fallen off my watchlist. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New family

The geneticists have managed to find a new family, and actually named it this time. Say hello to the Pnoepygidae, formerly just the genus Pnoepyga. The HBW has fairly good coverage of the four species, and we have a photo, so I am thinking DYK (but not till tomorrow night, as internet is not at home till then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Beginning to sort out the whole mess of Old World babblers at last? Maias (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (34)

Barn Swallow; adult, judging from the length of the tail streamers... MeegsC | Talk 08:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Gosh, that is tricky, the underside would be helpful with diagnosis, but location will help. Maybe a Barn Swallow or a Welcome Swallow if in Australia. Not familiar with US birds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure where Evanston Lake is. Some of the other photographs are probably in Chicago and around the great lakes of America. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Evanston, Illinois is a suburb of Chicago (in the heart of the US continent); a Welcome Swallow in either place would have made birding news worldwide!  ; ) MeegsC | Talk 10:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
An interesting feature in this photograph is the white in the tail feathers. Not knowing much about swallows, I wondered if this meant anything? Snowman (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely Barn Swallow. Virtually certain to be NAm ssp H. r. erythrogaster on location, although underparts are not visible to confirm on appearance. Barn Swallow always has the white spots. Males with long streamers also have larger white tail spots, and since feather-eating bird lice prefer white feathers, large white tail spots without parasite damage demonstrates breeding quality; there is a positive association between spot size and the number of offspring produced each season. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Hirundo rustica -flying -Chicago -USA-8.jpg on commons with the other one in the flickr photo-stream as well. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the zoo folks have commented on the flicker photo that it is a female Yellow-knobbed Curassow Crax daubentoni . Shyamal (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yellow-knobbed Curassow uploaded to File:Crax daubentoni -Philadelphia Zoo -female-8a.jpg and cropped version used in species infobox. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That looks like a Pheasant Pigeon Pheasant Pigeon, the bird park routinely puts other birds in the BOP aviary. Dougjj (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Otidiphaps nobilis -Jurong Bird Park-8a.jpg on commons, and shown on species page in gallery. Do the text books say this subspecies is called the Green-naped Pheasant Pigeon? Snowman (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
: Looks like a Lesser Bird of Paradise Lesser Bird of Paradise, the habitat lighting for these birds at the bird park is mixed, adjusting the camera's white balance is tricky and can shift the colors a little. Dougjj (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Kori Bustard ? Shyamal (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Divers

I see Meegs has got R-t Diver to GA, well done. Could this be the start of a Gavia FT? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is feasible, given there are only four of the things (and the genus/family...). I have left a note on the talk page, we should see what needs doing to get it to FAC now..Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi all. I've been working on the article Outline of Palestine and began collecting informatin about birds in Palestine for one of the entries there. I decided to start an article on List of birds of Palestine so as not to overwhelm the outline with that information. The thing is, my knowledge of taxonomy is zero and I was hoping that some of you may be able to come over to the article and help organize it correctly. There are some good sources listed thathave a lot information I have yet to incorporate. Palestine hosts one of the richest and most diverse bird populations and for bird-lovers, its a very interesting place. So if anyone want to pitch in, I'd be deeply appreciative. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 13:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I commented at the talk page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
and I commented on Tiamut's talk - at least we were saying the same things! Any future comments, I'll put with Jerry's Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Peters Checklist online

Apologies if this is old news but I've just learnt that the Peters' checklist is now online at [2] SP-KP (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone fancy doing some work on Cockatiel?

It's getting rather bloated, how-to-y and full of unsourced statements again. I'm quite tempted to take a scythe to it but I strongly dislike doing that if there's content that could be useful when referenced. Any Cockatiel experts here with a spare couple of hours? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is in need of a makeover. Much of the avicultural and pet stuff could be hived off into a separate article. Maias (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I was just looking at the article and I thought that a separate page on "Pet Cockatiels", "Cockatiles in aviculture", or "Cockatiels kept in cages and aviaries" might help. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Cockatiel (aviculture)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've decided to be bold and go ahead and do it (feel free to undo, if you believe that I've acted hastily - I don't mind). I don't know a huge amount about pet Cockatiels, so help would still be appreciated in making a better article. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I commend you for starting the article. I cannot help much since I know sod-all about the avicultural side of things, and you have inherited a load of stuff without adequate sources. Good luck! Maias (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Really, we need someone here with a textbook on Cockatiel rearing. I know from my experience with Budgies that a lot of what's written there is likely correct but I doubt that I'll be able to reference it without resorting to web forum posts and small hobbyist sites otherwise. SnowmanR keeps Cockatiels, doesn't he? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
YEAH! I personally really hate those aviculture sections, and I generally avoid editing those articles. I think it would be great to have this for each and every aviculture section. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Kim (I've been meaning to mention this to you for ages) - did you once write a 'how to care for your pet Budgerigar'-type book? I remembered your name from somewhere when I first saw you on WP and after racking my brains, I think I remember where. It must've been 20-odd years ago now when I bought the book after finding Joe (cobalt cock - my first budgie) in my garden as a boy. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think that the aviculture sections fit well on the species pages, but a lot of unsourced content has been added to the Cockatiel page. I would like to concentrate on writing about some of the bigger parrots. Incidentally, I do not have and I have never had any Cockatiels, but I have got at least three books on keeping pet Cockatiels. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
IMO, avicultural sections should probably follow the same standards as any article section on WP - if it starts to get too long/detailed when compared to the rest of the article, as was the case here, then splitting it off into a new article should seriously considered (as per WP:SPLIT). I don't (currently) see the need for a specific aviculture article for every parrot species article with an 'aviculture' section. A lot (most?) of these sections currently only seem to comprise of a couple of paragraphs - or less. If/when those are significantly expanded, then yeah, why not? - but not by default at this point. Yeah, articles such as Budgerigar or Lovebird could probably do with 'spin-offs' - but what's the point in creating loads of stubs that're probably going to end up severely neglected (or end up being merged back anyway after someone requests it)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Kurt box, nah, no never wrote anything even close to that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Well, I have been known to talk complete bollocks in the past (and I reserve the right to do so again)... ;) Well, I'm certain that I've read *something* that you've written, in the dim and distant, alcohol-hazed past. Heh. Sorry. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, my take on spinoff articles is that they should only be considered if a species has an extensive cultivation history (say more than 3 or 4 large paragraphs) which may preclude fitting on a comprehensive species page. Having a large number (say, over 8 or so) colopur mutations would do this. But otherwise should be kept on the species page if possible. Species in this category would be cockatiel, canary, budgerigar, maybe several lovebirds, pigeon, chicken,...maybe we should make a preemptive list somewhere? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that avicultural spinoffs are often unnecessary. Leaving aside domestic poultry, which have numerous "spinoffs" in the form of special breed and other articles, canary is covered by Domestic Canary. So maybe the only current candidates are Cockatiel and Budgerigar. I know that the latter has Budgerigar colour genetics, but I think there is still scope for a "Budgerigars in aviculture" article. The tipping point may partly be article size (or balance), but also when there is a complete disjunct between wild and avicultural populations - pet budgies and cockatiels are, as far as I know, completely bred in captivity these days and have diverged so far from their wild origins that they can be considered different types of birds. If you want to extend the list further, yes, I suppose some lovebirds and finches could be considered. Maias (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There are some species where it makes sense, but in most species it doesn't. I really need to get on that general parrots in aviculture article too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Lovebird and Fischer's Lovebird also have aviculture sections large enough to consider splitting, IMO. Peach-faced Lovebird is a maybe (note that we also have Peach-faced Lovebird colour genetics, which I split off from the main ages ago). There's also Parrotlet - which is pretty much an all-aviculture article anyway. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have done quite a lot of editing on the Agapornis genus page and I built the table of the species. I think that the aviculture portions of the genus page could be split to a page called "Lovebirds in aviculture" leaving a smaller volume of text on the genus page. I think that the aviculture on "Peach-faced Lovebird" does not need a separate page. There may be some overlap and repetition between the genus page and the Fischer's Lovebird. The genus page is a popular page getting about 400 to 600 hits per day, so any drastic edits need to be thought out. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New species

The Bare-faced Bulbul, announced yesterday (see Nat Geo piece here), after being described in Forktail. Somebody's already put up an article, which should be "projectified". MeegsC | Talk 09:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanded and nominated for DYK?. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting - that makes at least three bird species articles currently at DYK. Maias (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?

Here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting. Could this be useful to your wikiproject too? Tiamuttalk 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about this too, after seeing your excellent startup of Outline of Palestine. I think it could certainly be useful—like an index in an ornithology textbook, more or less. If others in the project agree it might be useful, I'm willing to make a first attempt. MeegsC | Talk 07:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like an interesting Idea, but what exactly do you mean? Is it like an article that generally covers all of ornithology? --Skinips (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess something like Outline of sharks would give us an idea of how to start. Basically, it would be an index that points to bird-related articles; it would give an interested reader a good idea of where to look for more information. In that regard, it's almost like a list—there should be a 4–5 paragraph introduction, followed by the list of articles. The list should be in some sort of intuitive order (which will probably take a bit of work), and can be as long or as short as we think appropriate. MeegsC | Talk 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Outlines are like an overview list linking to all related articles on a subject that serve as a kind of table of contents to the project. Outline of sharks would be a good comparative page to look at as an idea on how to set it up for fauna. [Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/What's missing? Outline of birds] hasn't been made yet, but its been requested that someone do it. After coming here for help (and getting some, thank you) I thought I would more formally introduce the idea. And thanks MeegsC for your kind words about my work. Still more to do there, but these things take time. What's best about them to me is how the process of putting one together helps you to get a good sense of what articles are missing in a given wikiproject, and which ones need more work. It also helps readers to better understand all angles of a given subject. You can read more at WP:WPOOK. If you have any questions or need any help, the talk page there is a good place to ask. You can ask me to, though I'm a newbie at the project. Still, I'd be happy to help any way I can. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 09:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I can see some potential benefit for the bird project if such an outline page brings in from the cold the several (and I have no idea how many are out there) articles relating to birds that are generally, too small, too specialised, too obscure or too wacky to receive much notice from project participants. I try to tag any such that I find, in the hope that this is somehow keeping track of them for future attention. Some could be expanded, others merged or otherwise revamped. Examples noted fairly recently are Plucking post, Bird tracks and Field mark. Maybe an outline page would help with these, as well as identifying gaps where no articles exist. Maias (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I second the idea. Articles vital to amateur naturalists like 'bird pellet' would get developed too. We need to bring up all vital physiology, behaviour, ecology etc articles at least to B level alongwith the present push for sp[ecies and family articles. AshLin (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FA nomination

I've nominates British Birds Rarities Committee as a featured article candidate. Please feel free to comment. SP-KP (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Of storks and men

When Ciconiiformes got reduced down to a single family, the storks, the two pages got merged but not at stork. Given the usual preference for having articles at their common name, any objections to moving the page to stork? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

None. Maias (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Go for it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Eh... what about merging (core) Pelecaniformes in Ciconiiformes? Shoebill, the perfect missing link. Nobody who actually does taxonomy these days likes monotypic families.
And also, I'd be reserved about the issue. 5 bucks says the pelicans, Shoebill & Hammerkop, storks, herons, ibises, ?flamingos & grebes, ?charadriiforms, ?Eremopezus, seriemas, phorusrhacids, teratorns, NW vultures, falcons, Secretarybird, Osprey, hawks, eagles and OW vultures sit on one branch. Maybe clade. Possibly clade if you throw in the other seabirds, but even then it might rather be a situation like with the "Corvida" and the Passerida. In any case, half of em always bunches together, the other half either hangs around in the vicinity or sits in all sorts of places that no other dataset ever finds again. And there can only be one tree, and parsimony says it's very similar to the one that disagrees least with the data. Ciconiiformes in the traditional circumscription (+ pelican lineage)? Well, more or less with about 60-80% of the studies I'd say. Ciconiiformes monotypic? Agrees with a single study, perhaps 2-3 more.
IMHO, the Science paper is mondo overrated. There is something strange going on; it has too many "clades" that fit like a square peg in a round hole. Remember the old molphyl paper that had Passeriformes as basalmost Neornithes (Neornithes. Not neognaths.)? I have not seen a refutation of the findings that mtDNA has weak and misleading signal beyond the Neogene. In a nutshell, from what I have seen regarding the theory behind the science 50% of its "clades" (and 95% of the "spectacular" ones) is long branch attraction. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering a little about that, i.e. is there a publication yet which labels a group of pelicans, storks, shoebill and hammerkop? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Christidis & Boles, as I see, do just what I circumscribed above ("Ciconiiformes" + core "Pelecaniformes" = new Ciconiiformes). The "other" molecular studies also raised doubts about ciconiiform monophyly, but that was because everybody still thought of "Pelecaniformes" in the old circumscription. What we have here is a situation a bit like with the old "Sylviidae" and "Timaliidae", but with the cores closer together. Phalacrocoracids are a most beautiful clade (only the root is a bit mushy viz. tropicbirds). Ibises and herons, despite the looks, are no such thing; they generally grade equidistant from each other and storks. Someone ought to run this guy through PAUP*; though dead for some 47 Ma he (she?) might still be able to tell. Til this is done, reducing Ciconiiformes to Ciconiidae might necessitate recognizing both Ardeiformes and Threskiornithiformes too. Yuck.
BTW I have adopted Odontopterygiformes for pseudotooth birds (to get them out of the Pelecaniformes), that OK? Many modern authors use it, and it makes sense given that nobody really wants them in Anseriformes no matter how close they might be to them. This is one of the cases where a monotypic order seems to be alright; if I read Mayr right, 2 or 3 families might be acceptable altogether; he seems to consider Dasornis and Odontopteryx rather distant from each other. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
4444hhhh made the changes without discussion (again), all I did above was have the family page for storks at storks. Given the potted history of the order there is to my mind a strong case for resurrecting Ciconiiformes as an article to discuss all this. Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The wildly fluctuating status of Ciconiiformes over the last 15 years or so probably warrants an article itself, yes. Stork can then be at Ciconiidae unambiguously and plainly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. I'm in favor of emphasizing uncontroversial taxa such as Ciconiidae and, when they exist, putting descriptions there. Ciconiiformes looks like a great place for the muddle in classification. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up - Symbolism/folklore books

I have borrowed a couple of books on folklore/symbolism -one being:

Armstrong, Edward A. (1970) [1958]. The Folklore of Birds. Dover. ISBN 0-486-22145-8.

the other a more general symbolism book. I have stuck some bits in here and there (they are obviously best for european birds). just give me a hoy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also of interest may be - Ingersoll, Ernest (1923) Birds in legend, fable and folklore. Longmans, Green & Co. Full text on http://www.archive.org/details/birdsinlegendfab00inge Shyamal (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
And "Bird gods" http://www.archive.org/details/birdgods00deka and "Birds of song and story" http://www.archive.org/details/birdsofsongstory00grinrich and "A treasury of bird poems" http://www.archive.org/details/treasuryofbirdpo00poolrich Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Good find! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I expect there will be something about birds as dream symbols too. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Outline" discussion above deals with one way of linking articles, but I've just added navboxes to Chough, Alpine Chough and Red-billed Chough, which also help to link these related articles. A genus article usually lists its members anyway, but the advantage of a navbox is that each species would have a link in the box to the genus article and the other species in the genus. The use need not be restricted to species/genus, you could have family/genus and order/family boxes too. Nor need they be restricted to taxa: you could have eg, American ornithologists or British bird magazines. I know the category system does this to some extent, but at least for the taxa it gives a more immediate presentation without clicking through to a cat. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have often thought they might be a good idea for linking together members of a family (collapsible for big families). The mammal people have one for the Carnivora, although I think family might be a batter way to organise species than order (I wouldn't want to make the Passerine one), although it could work with some orders. Maybe orders could contain families. Perhaps tomorrow I'll experiment in making a family one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Are there any suggestions to improve the new navbox I made for lovebirds? Snowman (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's fine except that the title of the box is a little clumsy. Lovebirds (Apagornis) would be better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have changed it to "Lovebirds (genus: Agapornis)". I might be wrong, but I think that it is clearer with the word "genus" somewhere in the title. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That works too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I just made one for the Gulls (below). What do you think? Good idea, bad idea? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kurt Shaped Box/Gulls (live version now at Template:Gulls)

  • Gosh, that is a complicated and impressive navbox. Good idea. In the main heading "family" could be wiklinked to "Family (biology)". Probably no need for two links to the same page (one via a redirect) when there is one species in the genus. Not knowing gulls very well I can not check the accuracy, and I was not sure of the groupings in the left column at first. I wonder if the top line under the main "Gull" heading could be "Genera" in the left column and "Species of the genera" in the larger right column. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I like it. I don't see a problem with linking genera in monotypic genera, most people won't realsie it is linked twice. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Okay, I've removed the redirect genera links. As for your other suggestion - well, I'm not entirely sure how to do that (and make it stand out)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that having the common name "Gull" in the main heading works and so does the family in the main brackets. Personally speaking, I guess that if most people do not realise the species genus links are duplicated for monotypic genera, then they might do a lot of unnecessary clicking on duplicated wikilinks, so I think it is better now that they are removed. With regard to the genus listing, I think it would be clear when the navbox is seen on the actual article pages. Are you ready to role it out? Snowman (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
One observation, it appears to be oddly inconsistent between North American and European usages. Gray Gull (NA spelling) yet Common Gull (British usage). In the light of the likely move to the IOC list why not use their common names? (Grey, Mew) Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I just took the names as used in the Gull article for the navbox... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Well, once we close off the discussion above we can sort out the gulls. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see there being much of a problem with Grey/Gray - but I've got a horrible feeling that any attempt to rename Common Gull is going to cause at least one person, somewhere to get very (and vocally) upset. In answer to Snowman - yeah, I'd be happy to start adding it to gull articles as it stands. If it's transcluded (as it will be - and as it is on this page), it can easily be edited later anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point on common names, I had not noticed that, because I do not know much about the nomenclature of these birds. Does it need fixing? Use IOC World Bird List name? Use IOC World Bird List followed by regional names in round brackets? Any other ideas? The discussion above on IOC Wold Bird List names does not include navboxes, so is another amendment needed? Snowman (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For gulls Mew/Common is the only contentious one as it represents that US/British division. Grey/gray is less of a problem as the IOC prefers Grey but states that Gray is acceptable in NA. I don't think there is a need for an amendment, I think the navboxes should simply reflect what the IOC list and possibly have alternate common names in instances where the alternate is very widely used. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hang on. The Common Gull article would suggest that the Mew Gull is only one subspecies of Common Gull. I don't know if that's correct or not - they're not one of the regular gulls that I've interacted with (it's all Herring and the two Black-backs around here). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That is correct. Mew Gull only refers to the NA ssp., brachyrhynchus. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Eh, it is more that the Mew is the US name which I guess some people treat as the name for the US subspecies. The IOC mostly split the difference using some US names and some UK, and in this instance went with the US. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno then. Expect the usual accusations of US cultural imperialism and all that if you ever attempt to rename the article though. It's not something I'd touch with a ten foot pole... ;) So, anyhoo - my navbox has now been moved to Template:Gulls. Does anyone have any objections to me going through and adding it to all the gull species articles? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I have added the local name of the Common Gull in round bracket, which is an experimental edit which can be discussed or amended before or after the new Gull template is rolled out. It is in line with what is said on the "Common Gull" article, and perhaps any modifications of this template should follow and be consistent with updates to the "Common Gull" article. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
How's about Common, or Mew Gull? Might look better and save space in the navbox... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Fine in principle, two minor points

  • Gray Gull is a redirect, if we are keeping US spelling, better to pipe than redirect
  • For Common Gull, KSB's version would be tighter and more accurate. Sibley, for example describes the ssp as "Short-billed Mew Gull" for the majority NAM population, and Common Mew Gull for the nominate ssp which occurs on the Atlantic coast. The Siberian form also occurs in Alaska Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for details information about names of Gulls, which is extra to that given on the wiki article. I small point, but I think that "Common Gull" should be written in full to make it easier to read and reduce confusion. So I think "[[Common Gull|Common Gull (or Mew Gull)]] is better, but I would like to know if the "resident" Gull experts would check that this is correct and that they would be happy with this. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Kim has now edited it to read "Common Gull (including Mew Gull)". Perhaps we should wikilink the whole lot - or go with your idea... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I made the change suggested by Snowman earlier (adding the headings Genera and Species of the genera at the top of the list); have a look and see what you think. Also, should it be Species belonging to the genera instead of Species of the genera? MeegsC | Talk 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so *that's* how you do headings. :) I didn't think that it was that simple (I'd been looking for a specific heading field to use)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
"[[Common Gull]] (including Mew Gull)" is clear to me, and I hope that is is technically correct with Mew Gull appearing to be a subset of Common Gull. I have made "Genus" singular and simplified the right heading with just "Species", and added wikilinks. Does that look OK? Snowman (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just checked Mew Gull on the IOC World Bird List shorebird page and found it is another name for the genus Larus canus, so it would be incorrect to say "Common Gull (including Mew Gull)", so I have changed it to "[[Common Gull]] (or Mew Gull)", which also has the advantage of being shorter. Snowman (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just piped the link so it now appears as [[Common Gull|Common Gull (or Mew Gull)]]. The two names look more equal that way. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me, even [[Common Gull|Common Gull or Mew Gull]] would be OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The two are probably different species anyway...why not have two pages? Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Now rolled out to all the Gull pages using semi-automated software. I found some anomalies on the way - Cape Gull and Kelp Gull were links to the same page, so I removed the redirect leaving Kelp Gull (IOC name); East Siberian Gull redirected from East Siberian Herring Gull, Grey-headed Gull redirects from Gray-hooded Gull. Which are the correct names? Snowman (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Grey-hooded Gull is IOC name for Grey-headed Gull, Vega Gull is IOC name for East Siberian Gull or East Siberian Herring Gull. Grey Gull is IOC name and name of article, so I fixed redirected Gray Gull. I have just put some more "(or name)"s in the template and fixed another redirect. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The IOC states that local spelling of gray is preferred; in the case of Gray Gull, it's an American species, the only record of which exists in an English-speaking country is the US. In light of that, it should be spelled gray, right? Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I tested "Name1 or Name2" and "Name1 (or Name2)" using the "show review" tab and I thought the latter looked better and is easier to see that there is an alternative, easier to scan, and visually more clearly self explanatory. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me! --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Appreciation for KSB for initiating the Gull navbox and for to all the other editors who contributed helpful comments. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Further navbox question

At what level should navboxes be titled if a genus, family and order are one and the same? I've put one together for the divers/loons (since that's the group I'm working on at the minute), but I'm not sure whether the title should say Loon/Diver (genus: Gavia) or Loon/Diver (family: Gaviidae) or Loon/Diver (order: Gaviiformes). I guess my gut feeling is it should go at the family level. Any suggestions? MeegsC | Talk 11:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not put all the levels in? and only one wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I've now done a straightforward navbox for the grebes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone finds it tedious to add a navbox to all the pages, I expect I could role-out a non-controversial navbox template quite quickly using AWB. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just written {{Trogons}}, only added to family page so far. Snowman, do I understand you to be saying that you could add this automatically to the the other trogon pages? If I've misunderstood, let me know and I'll do it manually. Thanks . I've also done {{tropicbirds}}, but I have done the whole family by hand {: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have rolled out Template:Trogons navbox using semi-automatic software, which I was happy to do. Anomalies: Priotelus genus does not have its own page and two species in that genus are in the navbox. Is there a reason for that? Does anyone have any more navboxes that I could role out? Snowman (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for trogon roll out. I suspect that Hispaniolan Trogon was either split from Cuban or moved from another genus. I've done a scruffy little stub for Priotelus . Also done {{Frigatebirds}}, but only 5 sp, so manual Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the family and order navboxes made so far (Template:Loons, Template:Grebes, Template:Tropicbirds, Template:Trogons, Template:Bee-eaters, Template:Gulls, Template:Frigatebirds) are being listed on Outline of birds#Types_of_birds. There could be easily viewed collectively if they were in there own categories (see suggestion below). When there is more it should be possible to see about nesting them. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The thought occurs that the whole of outline of birds could be structured with navboxes nestled in navboxes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_40&oldid=1079676422"