Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

GT

Forgive my ego trip on the project page, I have no objection whatsoever to a more subdued version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done {{Accipitriformes}} and added to the five articles. Should {{New World vultures}} be nested in this (and eventually {{Accipitridae}} when it's written)? If so, I've no idea how to do the nesting. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done {{Sandgrouse}}, could you check and roll it out please, Snowman? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Rolled out. Anomalies: "Masked Sandgrouse" is a redirect, or is this intentional. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Never heard of it so not intentional, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added {{Vangas}} — can you roll this one out too please, Snowman? MeegsC | Talk 14:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Rolled out. Accidental or intentional Anomalies: redirects - Chabert's Vanga, Coral-billed Nuthatch-vanga, Short-toed Nuthatch-vanga, Crossley's Babbler-vanga, Ward's Flycatcher-vanga. Snowman (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I started doing a navbox for Tinamous, but there are two subfamilies. How do I deal with this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Cockatoos, where KSB has built an extra column. Snowman (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll knock this one out later today with luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, {{Tinamous}} is done, could you roll it out please? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Rolled out. No anomalies found. Obviously the templates need watching. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Also see Template:Nestoridae which has two tribes. Snowman (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Piciformes}} rolled out, please check (added {{Ramphastidae}} to toucan en passant) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine with title change, I dithered over whether to put that in myself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Query for snowman. I noticed on Toucan you reversed the navbox order. On other pages, the family or order navbox has preceded the {{bird}} navbox, so I assumed we were putting the lower taxonomic level navbox first, since it has more immediate relevance. Toucan now has higher level first. I don't mind either way, but I think we need a consistent approach Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
An interesting point. I have changed it back. Is it more logical to have the higher ranks above, as in the taxobox? Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomic summaries, like the taxobox, are invariably written top down. The navboxes have a different function; if you're looking at Turkey Vulture, it's probably more likely that you will want to use the {{New World vulture}} navbox to find a similar species than to find another {{Accipitriformes}} family or another {{bird}}order altogether Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What would you do where there are several navboxes on a page? see Pelecaniformes.Snowman (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't put the family navboxes on the order page, since the families are listed in the order template anyway. I would suggest that there should be only two taxonomic navboxes on a page, the appropriate one for the page plus the next one up. So an order page would have taxoboxes for the order and ((Aves}}, a family page would have its own navbox plus {{order}}. Maybe we need a consensus on this? Incidentally, {{Cormorants}} completes the set if you could please roll it out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The situation with all those navboxes is temporary, and I was hoping that a cormorants navbox would be ready soon. There have seen some special navboxes for displaying grouped topics that may be useful here. I think that there are a range of options, so lets think carefully and deicide collectively what is best. Incidentally, could all this order go in one navbox? Snowman (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Cormorants navbox rolled out. What about the structure of the these set of navboxes. See Template:Navbox with collapsible groups. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
{{Penguins}} now done, please roll out when ready
Rolled out. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Parrot navboxes

Ok, we need a comprehensive approach with the Parrots. parrots are a nightmare, and the current state of the pages and classification is a mixture between various classifications, and implemented only partially which results in species added to a tribe at one page and to a subfamily at other places and much much more 'fun'. There are many small clades. Two just rolled out navboxes are a taxonomic nightmare,. because of this. So, how are we going to fix that issue. I think we need a hierarchical navbox, the question is what the layers will be. This really forces us to clean up the mess the parrots are...... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been concentrating on adding images and descriptions for the parrot pages and the taxonomy aspects may be lagging behind a bit. Perhaps one day parrot taxonomy literature will be clearer. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I wonder about making a family navbox on Psittacidae based on phylogeny. Awaiting comments on the Cockatoo navbox. Snowman (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (35)

Looks like a just-fledged Common Blackbird, still showing the yellow gape. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Turdus merula -juvenile -garden-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Hirundo rustica erythrogaster -Massachusetts -chicks-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Syrmaticus reevesii -Norway -captive-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Turdus pilaris -Norway -recently fledged-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Hirundo rustica gutturalis -Japan -chicks-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Oriental Magpie Robin, think we have enough pictures of this. Shyamal (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Copsychus saularis -Malaysia-8.jpg on commons and cropped version shown in infobox on wiki species article - the old infobox image bird faced the wrong way. Thank you for identifying it, and I have managed to work out that it is a male. I have had a look at all the Oriental Magpie Robin images on commons and considering the resolution, the natural setting, and that it faces the right way for an infobox image, and the clear view of its tail, I think that it is one of the best photographs of this species on commons. I think that the commons has been improved by adding this image. Snowman (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Wryneck? Maias (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yawning owl, probably a Burrowing Owl. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if it was something rare from Madagascar (Zurich Zoo have Madagascar conservation project), but website says nothing about Madagascar owls (?White-browed Hawk-owl?), but has a page on the Burrowing Owl. Snowman (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mexican spitting pigeon

I recently spotted this page and suspect it of being a hoax. Does anyone knowledgeable about this know? Triplestop x3 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the link is already red, as it should be. There's no such bird in Howell and Webb, A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take long to do a navbox, and Snowman's AWB deals with the tedious bit for large groups, so it should be realistic to do navboxes for most families. Might have to have a think about the largest families. Do we want navboxes for eg Tyrannidae, Columbidae or Trochilidae to list every species? Jimfbleak - talk to me?

I quickly looked at the Columbidae page - looks like there is about 200-250 species with a few large genera. It looks reasonable. I might be wrong, but it looks like some of the sub-families do not have names, which makes breaking it up into smaller groups problematic. Gosh, I did not know there was so many tyrant flycatchers (Tyrannidae) - my fist impression is that it is too big for a navbox to be listed on every page, but to be consistent a navbox of some sort is needed. Trochilidae (see List of hummingbirds in taxonomic order) has two subfamilies which might help. As this is new to WB birds, I am not sure about joining up navboxes or nesting them yet, and there might be other navbox solutions. If the navboxes are not controversial, I anticipate that I would quickly role out these navoboxes with AWB. Awaiting comments? Snowman (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I expect Secretary Bird will need its on family navbox. How many families and orders are there? Penguins and albatrosses are popular groups. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 20+ orders (some of which only have one family and therefore wouldn't need separate order nav), about 200 families
  • The ratites are a group in which the logical navbox would be an order box listing genera and species. Any thoughts? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Turacos rollow out. Anomalies: I do not find the heading "Turacos, go-away birds and plantain-eaters" self explanatory. Grey Plantain-eater is a redirect to Western Grey Plantain-eater. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the redirect. The choices for the title section are
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
My confusion might be because of this: If not all the species are actually named as turacos, then the family page has the wrong name. It is called Turaco, which tends to imply to me that they are called Turacos. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The common name for the family is turaco. In HBW turaco is used when referring to the whole family. Go-away birds and plantain eaters are turacos with different names in much the same way as pintails, gadwall, teal, shovelers, wigeon and garganeys are all ducks. Incidentally in South Africa, where they are called louries instead of turacos, the whole lot are called louries, whether they are the colourful ones we call turacos or the drab ones we call go-away birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
What goes on the top line of the navbox? Snowman (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Turacos (family: Musophagidae) works for me. It is consistent with what we are doing elsewhere, and with the meaning of the word turaco. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have amended the introduction to the Turaco page and the navtemplate. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It's fine. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
OK with me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Template_class_page. Snowman (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
And they have fixed it. Use "class=Template" in WP banner of templates. See Category:Template-Class bird articles where they can be viewed. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting more comments. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Draft Template:Psittaculini - I am not sure about the evidence for the Réunion Parakeet and some of the other extinct parrots. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    Nightmare group. As current, a composite of various tribes. Complete mess (just like all the taxonomy in all the related articles). Phylogenetically, there is a rather clear picture, but nobody has yet changed the taxonomy related to it, probably waiting for the remaining genera to be added to the mix. The revision of the parrots is going to be a massive undertaking, so I do not expect it to be soon. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I expect you are correct, but the navbox reflects the traditional view that is also given on the wiki pages. What else can be done? Rolled out. Awaiting more comments. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
There is not much traditional on the current classification at WP. Really, it is a mess between new and old ideas, and nothing consistent. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes Sabine's Sunbird and I argue about things like this, but not this time. I think "Toucans" alone is fine here, but if you want something else, I suggest "and allies". "Ilk" is always used with a possessive pronoun such as "their", and I don't think I've ever seen it used in the name of a taxon like this. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that 'Toucans and ilk' should be the title of the navbox. That was just a case of me missing out a word whilst falling asleep in my computer chair. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Herring Gull split proposal

Currently, Larus argentatus redirects to the Herring Gull article, which covers both the Larus argentatus species and herring gulls in general, often failing to distinguish between the two. Larus argentatus is the only species in the Herring Gull / Lesser Black-backed Gull complex which lacks its' own article. I proposed a split last year, however there hasn't been any progress. Could someone familiar with gull taxonomy split the article? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that L. argentatus is just called "Herring Gull" rather tha "European Herring Gull" or whatever (people round here call them Shitehawks and my friend calls them Flying Chavs but we can't really do that). I think we'll have to disambiguate Herring Gull and restore Larus argentatus as a full article. There's possible potential for an article on L.a. argenteus too - a lot of the stuff about raiding bins and stealing chips could go there. But one step at a time. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the above soon proposal about common names as you suggest Larus argentatus would be moved to the European Herring Gull, Herring Gull would be a dab page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
But is "European Herring Gull" an accepted name? It'd be original research if we just made it up to solve a titling problem. 86.167.81.92 (talk) (Totnesmartin at work, not logged in) 12:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It is if we move to the IOC list! See the list, where Larus argentatus is indeed called European Herring Gull. I'm guessing you (like me) live in the UK, which is notorious (in the rest of the world anyway) for calling things by "abbreviated" names ("the" wren, "the" swallow, "the" sparrow etc.) MeegsC | Talk 12:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
European Herring Gull it is then? You'll have to do the honours, I'm at work. And yes, I do live i the UK (and getting woken by these blighters at 5am far too often)! 86.167.81.92 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No objections here. No objections to the 5am gulls either - I find them to be rather charismatic birds and the chicks are adorable, despite all the squawking and cheeping. I *am* an insomniac, however. :) As a matter of interest, what's the American Herring Gull generally referred to as in the US? By the people who don't call it 'a seagull', I mean. Heh, I thought that Americans also tended to lay claim to having *the* robin, *the* buzzard and suchlike? :D --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The AOU still lumps them. You can see committee members strongly criticizing the split here. In general, the AOU is a big fan of Common this, American that (including American Robin), Northern the other, instead of laying claim to *the* anything. Of course, casually people who know a bird's "full name" will use just its "last name" if it's the only one with that name in the area. "Look, a kestrel." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Right now, I'm giggling at the suggestion that the AHG be named the "Sea Gull". That would cause a global shitstorm of *epic* proportions *and* it would also invalidate the arguments of uptight forum jerks who like to pile onto newbies who don't know better and sneer that "there's no such thing as a sea gull!" or "I can't answer your question as that bird does not exist" whenever the incorrect terminology is inadvertently used. Every cloud has a silver lining and all that... Heheheheheh. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Project collaborations

I was wondering what people thought about the possibility of extending the time for project article collaborations to more than a single month. (Two? A quarter?) We don't seem to get very far in a month, and (other than a brief spate at the beginning of 2008, when we got 3 of 4 articles to FA) often leave articles in little better shape than they were when we started. Would it make more sense to work on a group article for a longer period of time? Or should we continue with the current "one a month" scheme? Our current collaboration (Secretary Bird) has been going for more than 2 months now, but hasn't seen a huge amount of effort yet... MeegsC | Talk 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think quarter would work better. We didn't do too bad on Red Knot or Ara, and Sec-bird got some work at the start. But yeah, we just aren't doing enough to do this monthly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If we do this, why not set a real target? Procellariiformes and New World vulture each needs a B->GA and a start->GA to become the project's first FT. In either case, it's a lot of work for one person, and for the vultures at least, I don't have enough resources to do it as a solo project even if I wanted to. If we picked one of these, with the entire topic behind the effort, it should be easy in a quarter to get two GAs and notch up an FT. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree. I have jotted some notes for SS and dysmorodrepanis and others on Procellariiformes talk page. Let's get a few topics up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The only problem with the Procellariiformes FT is the utterly worthless page Petrel. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, as a preliminary move, all non-duplicated material in Petrel could be merged into Procellariidae and any other appropriate taxon articles. Maias (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure "deleting" the topic is the correct way to go. Why not beef up the article, kind of like what is done to any article that we want to improve. Petrels are a large enough group of birds that a GA is possible, speednat (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Petrel can mean a) All the Procellariidae minus the shearwaters (as in "Sheawaters and Petrels", sensu HBW name) b) all the Procellariiformes minus the albatrosses (Albatrosses and Petrels, sensu Brooke in the book of the same name) or c) all the Procellariiformes (sensu Warham). Sometimes once source can use both - in the index page the IOC uses the third meaning (Penguins & Petrels - but on the actual page Petrels is used only in Procellariidae ([1]). The article as it stands is the second meaning, which is paraphyletic. Yes, you could write an article duplicating everything that is going to go into the completed Procellariiformes article, with anything about albatrosses removed, but what the fuck use would that article be? Hey, come check out this article, now with 100% no albatrosses! With all the masses of work we need to do on useful pages (still a bunch of family articles that are stubs, not to mention the pitiful state of the majority of the orders), why would anyone bother? Certainly no one had until this point. Like many common names its meanings are too diverse to write a meaningful article that could approach even GA standard. I have suggested merging the article with Procellariiformes, taking the widest sense of the meaning, and still feel that is the best approach. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree; if the article serves any useful purpose, then fine, keep it; it just seems completely redundant. I was suggesting merge rather than delete, but how much stuff is there there to merge? Maias (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer merging Procellariiformes in - and have it as the main article for the order. Use common names when available and all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I mused momentarily on the family but forgot about the diving- and storm-petrels, also family known as true petrels, and noted examples of order called 'petrels' above. so, yes, agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that that idea is rubbish. Sorry, but it is my opioion, and you have yours, but there it is. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm...huh? Which? merging petrel and procellariiformes? can you elaborate a little? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I find the statement that no one has bothered to "beef up" the Petrel article yet to be insulting. There are 150 edits on the article and over 60 editors that would disagree with that statement, and regardless of how many articles need work and whatever section is in a terrible state...etc. merging Petrels is a bad idea lacking any sort of broad thinking. Don't mean to push any buttons (no F bombs here), but I believe in what I have stated here. I also believe that we are losing sight of the big picture. What is Wikipedia? Do other encyclopedias have a petrel entry? Finally, what is the big picyure? more articles with better and better information, but also lots of smaller articles, with some good information, or is it a contest to see who can have the most FT's. Now don't get me wrong, as I am as competitive as the next guy, but the way to get more FT's is as important as getting them. speednat (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please explain your reasoning, and your anger. As in - what function, benefit even, does having two articles serve? Which meaning of petrel (of the three that exist) do you favour? Why is settling on the broadest one, and merging in a whole bunch of info, bad? Because the way I see it - petrel as it stands is going to get more traffic because it is the common name, and unless common names redirect to scientific names Joe Public rarely looks at scientific name articles - and Procellariiformes, the order, not the random assortment of Procellariformes which are called petrels as opposed to shearwaters or albatrosses or whatever, is the more worthy article, and I am simply proposing moving the worthy article to the article space that will generate the most traffic. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
My cause of anger is simple, the negativity of the initial post and use of colorful language. As far as reasoning, the whole idea of deleting an article for the reasons given is so against what a project like Wikipedia stands for. Also, the petrel article does what most articles do....inform. If confusion is what we are trying to avoid, use hatnotes or a dab.
Merging isn't deleting. The term petrel and Procellariifomes can be synonymous, so why not have one article? Merge the contents of two articles into one. Have both articles sit at Petrel, with the good of both kept and the rubbish removed. Nothing un-Wikipedia about that. Dabs and hatnotes don't solve the problem. Again I ask what function, benefit even, does having two articles serve, when they are potentially so similar? Which meaning of petrel (of the three that exist) do you favour? And what benefit is there to having an article as it is now, the polyphyletic assemblage of all of the order that didn't get called something else? As for my tone, if I were talking about an editor I'd be right out of line. But I will never hold back from calling an article rubbish if it is. In this case I consider the article rubbish because it serves no useful purpose and it could serve a useful purpose. You tell me it does, but you have not made that case, you have simply asserted that it is useful simply "because". Because it informs? It doesn't inform very much. It's mostly a crude list of the petrels - listing most of the Procellariidae genera but none of the other petrel genera. It doesn't even mention the probable split of the storm-petrels. It certainly doesn't say anything that the Procellariiformes article doesn't (oh, except for the vital fact that albatrosses aren't petrels - which is arbitrary and not always even the case). Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New World vulture navbox

Template:New World vultures - comments please Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • IOC World Bird List on vultures says Black Vulture. This alternative name probably needs adding so both names appear in the navbox. I have changed it, and I think would be useful to hear more opinions. Is anyone not happy about the artwork (text layout) or using the two common names here? Will one name suffice? Snowman (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind, but American BV is actually clearer, since there is a European Black Vulture, and Black vulture is a redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, what about (American) Black Vulture? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Black Vulture is a redirect to the dab page Black vulture, but it does not change that the American Black Vulture and the European Black Vulture are both called Black Vulture locally or that Black Vulture is the IOC World Bird List name for American Black Vulture. I find "(American) Black Vulture" a bit confusing, and I do not think it follows any standard wiki formats. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This navbox now transcludes to all the relevant New World vulture pages. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For navboxes is there a consensus that the scientific name of the genus goes in the left column and the common name of the species goes in the larger right column? This seems OK to me at the moment, but it might need to be tested when there is an example where there is a genus with a common name and seeing what the two look like in the left column. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the genus must be scientific. Although some genera are monotypic like Coragyps, and others have an obvious English version, like Chough for Pyrrhocorax, others such as Cathartes above or Larus have no exact English equivalent. we don't want a mix of English and scientific, so it must be just the latter. Species is easy, all have a common name, and it is project policy to use English rather than binomial for species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that we should stick with genus name on the left and common names for species on the right. As Jim says, a mix wouldn't be desirable. MeegsC | Talk 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A further point is whether we should have a consensus of which/how many navboxes to use. Alpine Chough, for example, could have a genus navbox, a Corvidae navbox, a passerine navbox, and {{bird}}}. Two questions
  • How many navboxes max? My preference, despite adding the bird navbox to chough, on reflection would to have just one per article, so {{bird}}} might only be used on order-level and non-taxon articles
  • What level? I think this is a play-it-by-ear thing. Sometimes it is obvious - New World vulture is a family, and most of the genera are small or monotypic. However the intended purpose also needs to be considered. Cathartes with three species plus the genus, could be a GT or FT in its own right. If it went to FT assessment, it would have to have a Cathartes navbox to show the cohesiveness of the topic.
Any opinions before we trot out too many more navboxes? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Having looked at some of the other topics being nominated at FT, it does not seem that a navbox locks you into to a topic. I think that one per article might be desirable but where a article links to navboxes two might be needed. For example You might have a order level navbox (say passerines) and a family level one (all the pittas), in which case Pitta is going to have at least two navboxes (a passerine one and a family one). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Some anatomy pages have loads of navboxes, and so do some of the mammal pages. It would be best to avoid repetition. I am not convinced that adding the birds template to choughs is useful. Snowman (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Are we all agreed that it's probably not a good idea to create a passerine navbox listing every single species in the order by genus? Just a thought before someone starts work on it... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It'll be a job and a half getting all the families in a taxobox alone, so I agree. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment to Kurt and Jim - can you put a version of the navboxes here that doesn't add these pages to the respective categories? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have signposted them with wikilinks without applying the template to this page - formatting edits without changing meaning to reduce confusion. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Macaws

Template:Macaws

First draft, ready to be mercilessly edited and hacked to pieces really. There are a couple of things that I'm not sure about myself - I decided to create a group for 'Extinct and hypothetical Macaws' but perhaps these might be better listed by genus. Also, I decided not to place Arini/Arinae at the top of the navbox as this tribe/subfamily does not exclusively contain Macaws. Thoughts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Scarlet Macaws, so good they got listed twice! My only serious thought is about species with two names - in my opinion listing both is only really needed when both names are commonly used. I've never heard of these macaws having two names - are they commonly (as opposed to occasionally) used? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about the 'Illiger's Macaw' - but 'Buffon's Macaw' is a fairly common alt. name (it's the name that I've always known the bird by until I started editing WP) and 'Blue-and-gold Macaw' is probably in as, if not more common use than B+Y... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the extinct and hypothetical - my inclination would be to separate the two. One line for confirmed species, one for hypothetical. Perhaps have the confirmed species inside their genera with a †, then separate out the hypothetical extinct species with a link to Hypothetical extinct species by way of explanation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have separated the extinct species where there is some evidence, which are now in the Ara genus row, and left the hypothetical extinct species in their own row marked "Hypothetical extinct species (unconfirmed genus)". I think it is true to say that they are from an unconfirmed genus given such little evidence for their existence, or would anyone identify any the hypothetical extinct macaws as belonging to a genus? As the evidence of the Cuban Red Macaw and the St Croix Macaw are in different leagues I have made symbols to indicate these facts. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the symbol should follow the species, not precede it (isn't that how it usually goes?). Not sure if you need to have a separate symbol for the St Croix species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that the sign usually goes after the species. I have put the extinction sign after both species, and an extra sign after the St Croix Macaw for sub-fossil evidence only. Anyway, with only sub-fossil evidence I think that the extra symbol is needed. It is an old chestnut, but is it 100% sure that the St Croix Macaw is a separate unique species? Snowman (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Now rolled out including to "Hypothetical extinct species". Snowman (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's looking good now. I've added a mention of the Severe Macaw but apart from that, it looks as though it's got everything on it that ought to be on it. Thanks SMR. So, what do you reckon next, parrot-navbox-wise? Cockatoos? Amazons? I'd quite like to do one for the Conures - but I'd imagine that there might be some opposition to that... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I find the new Macaws navbox very useful, I used to use the taxobox and go up the taxonomic tree and down to a species again. Amazons should be easy and so should "Lories and Lorikeets". Cockatoos would be useful, but a bit more complex. There might be a way of joining up or displaying a group of navboxes together on a page, so consistency is important. Aratinga is another large parrot genus. I think "Lories and lorikeets" and Cockatoos are next. I am wondering about the groupings of the Arini, and if it is reasonable to put a subset of Arini in a navbox, but I am not sure yet. I am going to do one for lories and lorikeets. Snowman (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll probably have a proper crack at doing a navbox for the Cockatoos later on tonight, FWIW. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Lories and lorikeets. First draft. "Autocallapse", while it is being edited and I will change it to collapse later. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Should there be parentheses around one of the names in the Flores Lorikeet or Weber's Lorikeet? MeegsC | Talk 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Typo amended. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment -is it wise to use the same symbol used in Macaws to denote subfossil species to denote sometimes subspecies here? My first instinc was to think "I didn't know there were subfossil Trichoglossus. Also, perhaps (Subfamily Loriinae in heading)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I also thought that when I was typing it, but because these characters are difficult to use with a standard keyboard, It was easy to copy the character from the other template with copy and paste. I will use a star. I agree that consistency is important. I was not sure if everyone agreed that it was a subfamily, and I am glad you mentioned that. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the disagreement is whether they constitute a family or subfamily. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought there was a subfamily or subfamily discussion too. I could write in "subfamily or family". Are there any incompatibilities with the IOC World Bird List, which I have not checked for these parrot names? Snowman (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Now rolled out. Amendments can still be made. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there will be no issues fixing it in the future if we need to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the two extinct Vini lorikeets be included? Maias (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point. The extinct vini are accidental omission's, especially if they have their own pages. I plan to look into it. Snowman (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Extinct species added. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Subfamily designation is obsolete. Currently, there is no reliable classification for this group, and authors differ dramatically. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is no new classification, then use the old classification. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Who's? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not up-to-date with the latest opinions. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am up to date, and there has never been a real consensus. I would say the two main opinions are Homberger and Forshaw. And they are VERY different, and both very wrong as the lorikeets are sister to the fig parrots in each and every recent study. A reason Christides and Boles do not adopt any. We should do the same as that is the last comprehensive discussion about the systematics in this family. [2]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
...and it gets weirder with results such as budgerigar being related to the group...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup, just have a look here for my current take on this (Neotropical genera are still missing). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Fig parrots look like lorikeets, but the Budgie looks different except perhaps for a bare cere. What about Guaiabero? I think most of these changes sound reasonable, but I think that the wiki should wait for more publications on the topic and when one of the classifications becomes more widely accepted. I have added a note to the navbox to say that classifications systems vary. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Guaiabero is with lovebirds and hanging-parrots, in a different clade. There are two issues, phylogeny (which is pretty well known now) and systematics (which has not been updated yet). The existing classification schemes for the psittaciformes are conflicting with each other, and nobody has yet taken the step to propose a new classification based on the new phylogenetic insights. As there is an obvious problem, I thinbk the wiki should reflect that as I have started to do with various higher level taxa. The message is very simple, there is no consensus nowadays due to many new insights. The budgie at the bone level seems to be actually also fit rather well in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read updates on the "Lories and lorikeets" article with interest. The navbox reflects the species and genus list on that page, and the navbox has an extra comment that says "content differs between taxonomic classifications". Perhaps this classification is in transition and amendments and updates to this list will be needed when there is wide acceptance of a new classification that takes into account new evidence. Is there anything that should be done differently on the wiki as this juncture? Snowman (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Snowman, the content within the lories does not differ. It is the position of the lories within the parrot family that is mainly under discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
But you said that "fig parrots" and others are with lories and lorikeets in some classifications. Do you mean the family and sub-family discussion mentioned on the wikipage? Snowman (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I was talking about the classification of the Lories and lorikeets as a clade, not the classification within the lories and lorikeets. The whole clade has been classified as a family or subfamily or tribe depending on author. Traditionally, lories are considered unique and distant from the remaining true parrots, but modern research shows that it is actually in the middle of the true parrots, and a classification as a subfamily next to the subfamily for the remaining true parrots is obviously incorrect. If you want to keep it as a subfamily, you have to make a lot of subfamilies before a subfamily for the lories is warranted based on phylogenetic information. I think in the end, the lories will be a tribe next to a tribe for the budgie and a tribe for the fig parrots. And together, they will become a subfamily. Just my 2 cents. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cockatoos. First try, according to my understanding of Cockatoos (which may be - and probably is wrong in places). Comment and critique (and fix if needed) plz. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Rolled out. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There is inconsistent use of redlinks for subspecies - the Palm Cockatoo and others have subspecies which are not redlinked in the navbox. The selective use of "subspecies" tends to give the idea that none of the other species has subspecies. I have removed the red links and called any additional pages to a species page a supporting page. All the species have pages and there is no need for redlinks, new supporting pages can be added when they are made. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Is "Licmetis" a subgenus or a genus? Snowman (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Subgenus untill now. Proposed to be elevated to genus, not followed by major publication yet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the navbox is ready for this elevation to genus. What might happen to the current "Cacatua (genus)"? Are "Calyptorhynchus" and "Zandra" genus or subgenus? Snowman (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Deleted. And subgenera. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the provisional news. I think that corellas are collectively similar and different enough from the Cacatua (subgenus) to be classified as a separate genus, and I think the Cacatua (subgunus) should be called a genus. I also think that the Black Cockatoos ("Calyptorhynchus" and "Zandra") are similar enough to be grouped in one genus without subgenera. The Palm Cockatoo is something completely different. The navbox is ready for these changes, and only a few amending edits are needed when the literature is out. The wiki pages can follow also, when the literature is out. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers in the navboxes

I think that each navbox should also mention the number of genera, species etc. from below the top most level (for family navbox, number of genera and species) of the navbox. It is certainly helpful. - DSachan (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It there an example of this? The trouble is that not everyone always agrees how many species there are. Is this a role for the navbox? Snowman (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better to leave this for the appropriate article, rather than the navbox; as Snowman points out, there are regularly disagreements among taxonomists as to how many species (and genera) there are for many families, and you can't really explain that in a navbox. MeegsC | Talk 22:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Meegs, the navbox is what it says on the tin, an aid to finding related articles, it is not intended to be an infobox. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thirded -agree with two preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Prioritising the unambiguous ones first...

Given there are huge numbers of these, might be best to focus on the no-brainers first....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or the most familiar/ubiquitous birds to the majority of the editors here (US/Europe people, I guess)? Or the genuses (geni?)/families containing the birds that get the largest number of pageviews at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Popular pages or genrea would be a good start. In most cases, I think that it may be better to put more than the genus, perhaps all of the higher level too. Anyway, a genus is a start. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering that Chicken is at the top (as one might expect), how about we (someone?) do the Phasianidae family next? Seems sensible to me. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
There are about 100 species - about 1% of the total bird species. The cockatoos navbox was quite complicated, and it has turned out well, I think. This is a more complicated. I do not know much about the chicken group, but I will be interested in the artwork (text layout) in this new navbox, if it is made. If determined, I guess with a combined effort, it would be quite easy to cover 20 to 30% of all the bird species with a purpose made navbox quite soon. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
WE would need to decide where we stand on the grouse and turkeys - in the Phasianidae or not? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I expect that you are correct. Awaiting comments and solutions. Snowman (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
After taking a closer look at it, it might be a better idea to divide the Phasianidae family by 'kind' (i.e. one for the quails, one for the partridges, etc.) for navbox purposes. It's probably going to be too large and unwieldy otherwise. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You can sub-nest - the mammal people have the entire Carnivora in a single box with multiple subboxes. Anyway, cor, adding these templates is tedious, no? Just did the Bee-eaters. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, Template:Carnivora is complete and utter overkill. Obviously, there must be a consensus at the mammals project that it's a good idea to add it to all their articles - but I'd question the need to link every single carnivore article to every other carnivore article via template. Feels a bit 'indiscriminate collection of information-y' to me. I have virtually nothing to do with the mammals side of things - but if our mammals articles are anything like our birds articles, then there are going to be a hell of a lot of articles that are *much, much shorter* than the templates placed at the bottom... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think navboxes should be for navigating between relevant pages on the topic of the article. If you wanted to look-up something on a more distantly relevant page, then you would go to a list or do a search. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that an order is overkill, especially a big one (Passeriformes anyone?). That said I think you could arguably make a case for a single template per family in most cases. Some of the trully massive familes - ovenbirds, tyrant flycatchers, old world flycatchers, antbirds, they would be really tricky. Phasianidae is one that I would consider possible to do. But maybe I'm in a minority. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Phasianidae is probably just on the cusp of being do-able. I'll likely have a try at it in the next couple of days (if no-one else wants to do it immediately - if so, go ahead) and see how it turns out in terms of length... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_41&oldid=1140761698"