Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

I wonder if User Quadell who ran Polbot can fix all the broken external links to BirdLife International. I have enquired; see User_talk:Quadell#Can_Polbot_fix_it.3F. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been fixing as I work through the articles. speednat (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been fixing too, but I do not expect to do 10,000. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting Polbot to reply. Snowman (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting - FA nomination

British Birds Rarities Committee is running into trouble at FAC. I've been able to address many of the issues raised, but two reviewers have said that the article is in need of a thorough copyedit. They cite some examples and I can fix these on a per-example basis, but it seems as though there may be many examples, and we can't expect the reviewers to cite them all. As I'm the main author of the article, I'm unlikely to pick them up myself - an independent copyedit is what's needed. Would anyone be prepared to take this task on? This seems to be the main outstanding issue which would prevent the article from reaching FA (the next-biggest issue, the quality & range of photos, also needs to be addressed, but that shouldn't be too difficult given the huge number of high quality bird photos we have available to us). SP-KP (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do a bit later today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: FA discussion closed and article remains as GA. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds People

I have created Category:Royal Society for the Protection of Birds People. Please fell free to apply it where appropriate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Should it be "Royal Society for the Protection of Birds people"? - without a capital P in people. Snowman (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point, consider it moved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This notice is to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Parrot species with taxonomical issues

IOC has since my copy and paste of the names removed this species from the list, probably following SACC. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Different scientific name. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not an issue relating to an article name that needs to be moved. I expect that this can be amended by editing the page and showing where the evidence is. Redirects may need to be thought out. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Issue is currently unresolved among taxonomists. Added link and indicated uncertainty at page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
An explanation for the inconsistency here. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I had found that one as well... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy. Don't move. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
New species, SACC un decided. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy. Don't move. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
New species, SACC un decided. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy. Don't move. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy. Don't move. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy. Don't move. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, SACC does not recognize.
Taxonomy. Don't move. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one that we should follow, as the basis for it is pretty strong. I look more into this one. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
See comment for following. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomy. Don't move. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one that we should follow, as the basis for it is pretty strong. I look more into this one. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The SACC link in the article explains the situation well. I actually think this split is good, as perhaps evident from the wording in the article for the Speckle-faced Parrot, but I also think CBRO are correct in splitting P. reichenowi from P. menstruus, even if most (still) keep them together. However, unless there is clear evidence suggesting they are wrong (in this case there isn't), I do think we are mistaken in deviating from SACC taxonomy (especially when their view also is supported by other major taxonomic lists: Handbook of the World, Clements and Howard and Moore). IOC split everything, even when clear supporting evidence is missing. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a case where the SACC is running behind the evidence, see http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1624/2399.full . I propose that we follow this split in this case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a bit more complex, as SACC, as well as all major checklists, follow the biological species concept (and SACC do mention this paper under P. tumultuosus, but without taking a stance). On the contrary, the above paper suggests splitting every taxon they could discern, even taxa known to hybridize where they come into contact, i.e. they follow the phylogenetic species concept. This is not really surprising, considering that one of the authors, Joel Cracraft, has been one of the primary forces behind this concept in ornithology. The paper therefore establishes beyond all doubts that tumultuosus and seniloides are phylogenetic species, but that isn't really news. What remains to be judged is if other authorities consider their genetic divergence+other differences sufficient for them to be separate biological species. When compared to the divergence of certain other taxa within this genus I certainly think it matches biological species (with the usual caveat that relying on a specific genetic divergence, even within a single genus, does not always work when dealing with biological species). But it is irrelevant what I think (WP:NOR). 212.10.70.164 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see something like this on the species page. If you sign in you can edit with an improved interface and with a few more facilities including being able to "watch pages" - I expect you know that. It is ok to be anonymous and just use an IP number, but there are a number of IPs numbers and it is difficult to know if this is the same person or not. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Taxonomy issues of a questionably or new split species. This issue is unlikely to be solved in a consideration of names. I expect that the Cape Parrot page would need to be amended with the same taxonomy issues in mind. Changing this from a questionable taxa page to a species page will need alternative supporting evidence. If this is a subspecies, then IOC WBL does not apply. This page may need to be merged to Cape Parrot (to reduce confusion) until the evidence of a split is clearer. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not know why some of these species have been crossed out. Wiki policy says that you can only strike out your own text. Anyway, there might be a good reason for this, but it is not explained. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
They have been crossed out because there is nothing to change. Most of these involve taxonomic changes that are not recognized by many authjorities, and there is no way in hell that Wikipedia should consider those. IOC is rather liberal with accepting splits, which at times result in reversals. on their side, such as the Olive-throated and the Cliff Parakeet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the species crossed out by KimvdLinde were originally added by KimvdLinde so she only crossed out her own text. And yes, unless we always want to follow IOC taxonomy (not just English names as recently adopted), the crossed out species are incompatible with wiki taxonomy. The same can be said about Amazona diadema, which is highly unusual from a zoogeographic point of view and morphologically highly divergent compared to the northern taxa (e.g. A. a. autumnalis), but it is much closer to the southern taxa (A. a. lilacina), and therefore arguably represents the end of a cline. 212.10.70.164 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You are a good observer of who wrote what. Incidentally, you are not logged in. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't you recognize Rabo from the way he write and the knowledge he has? I asked yesterday.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I did wonder about that, but I have never heard him say "zoogeographic" before and there are a few typos. I thought "hydridize" was a new word, but I think it is meant to be hybridize. Is A. m. lilacina meant to say Amazona autumnalis lilacina? Are there any photographs of A. diadema on commons? What is A diadema currently known as? Snowman (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
S'pose so, no, and A. autumnalis diadema. And as regards biogeography - there ought to be some degree of lineage separation (novel microsatellites if nothing else). Is there an approximate date fix for the origin diadema already (haven't looked but I'd think not)? The distribution is so weird that I wouldn't rule out human transport... the Manaus region is not exactly one of the Amazonian refugia where a population that spilt over the Andes would settle down. The absence on the Guyana Shield can be explained... perhaps. Odd, tho. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know an approximate date fix for the origin of diadema hasn't been established or even guessed at. Ancient trade is unlikely, as there is little or no evidence of a trade route between the Andes and central Amazonia. The problem is that its distribution truly is unique. I cannot think of any other bird, mammal or reptile with an entirely trans-Andean distribution and then a single population in the central Amazon near the cross-section of Rio Negro/Rio Amazonas. This region does represent a refugia for a few otherwise west Amazonian species, represents the center of the distribution for many species associated with river islands and similar habitats (as is the case for diadema), the south-west border for many species of the Guyana Shield (even if it is increasinly obvious that many species where this traditionally has been considered the border occur further south e.g. in south-east Amazonas state/N. Rondônia, or west, e.g. near Iquitos) and the extreme south for several species associated with blackwater forest/woodland (e.g. the Rio Negro Caatingas). But other trans-Andean species with an isolated population there... they just don't appear to exist. Both lilacina and diadema were considered species before Peters had a look at them, but the chance of him getting it right with lilacina is much higher than for diadema. 212.10.86.162 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the range of the immediate archetypal species was more extensive at a particular epoch in the past and it also inhabited the current range of the diaderma, or was driven into that zone by shifting environmental conditions. It is a species that shows seasonal migration and flies a long way between its roosts and feeding grounds. I guess that it is likely that it may have lived along more of the coast of north Venezuela and extended its range up rivers or valleys to include what is now the range of the diaderma. With climatic or environmental changes a population may have became isolated to become ancestors of the parrots of the modern diaderma subspecies. At the present time the zone clearly has enough food and the right sort of trees for the parrots to live-on there. It would be interesting to see what is the genetic variability including that of mitochondrial DNA to assess if three was a population bottleneck. I guess that archetypal populations (from the range of modern salvini) have diverged to the salvini locally, to the autumalis in the north, the lilacina to the southwest, and to the diaderma east along the coast and then up rivers. If the species arrived in the diaderma range with a small genetic pool, then evolution may have been slower and so this is why it may look quite like archetypal population (and a bit like modern salvini which may have evolved more quickly holding more genetic variety). Are there any other forest living mobile candidates that lived along the coast of the north of Venezuela and then extended their range up rivers? Are there any published hypotheses? Are you referring to dating with mitochondrial DNA comparisons? Snowman (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
1) It is true that some population of A. autumnalis move e.g north/south or up/down mountains in response to food availability, but all movements are relatively minor and no population is truly migratory. 2) DNA may well solve this, but mtDNA is likely to be the least useful. 3) While there are exception and this is a gross simplification, a small genetic pool commonly facilitates fixation of unique alleles and therefore typically results in higher phenotypic divergence --> genetic drift. 4) The rise of the northern part of the Andes is ancient, but with an altitude of 'only' 1000-2000 m. until the rapid uplift during the Pliocene. There are (and were) holes in the Colombian and Venezuelan parts of this otherwise massive ecological barrier, but species associated with humid/semi-humid forest and woodland that have managed to penetrade the Andes have usually extended southwards along the east Andean slope or north-east to the Venezuelan Coastal Range. Directly east (and, largely, south of the Venezuelan Coastal Range) there is a band of relatively arid, open habitats that are unsuitable for most Amazona parrots, including A. autumnalis. This region was likely even drier and more open until post-Last Glacial Maximum. A. autumnalis occurs in Sierra de Perijá, but there is no evidence suggesting it ever has managed to cross the Cordillera de Mérida (the part of the Andes in this region) further east. I am not aware of any easy explanation on how diadema ended up in the central Amazon. If there had been an ecological connection it would have been expected that other species or superspecies also had utilized it and that appears not to be the case. 212.10.64.18 (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A. a. diadema is the only one with feathers around the nares. To me this seems to be a substantial difference, and perhaps a functional adaptation. Does this suggest that the ancestors lived in an arid dusty place and were under selective pressure to reduce dust inhalation, or does it suggest that it has a different set of ancestors that had feathered lores. I have not concentrated on feathered nares much in Amazona, but it can help to identify some lories and lorikeet genera. Has the massive meteor that hit the north of the region 65 million years ago got anything to do with changed ecological barriers? Would it be unusual for only one species to escape one ecological island to reach another? Presumably there were not many iguana species arriving on the Galapagos. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Some A. a. salvini also have feathering around the nares but to a lesser extend than typical A. a. diadema. I doubt this is an adaption related to dusty places as it doesn't match what can be seen in other parrots of relatively dry regions, incl. other amazons. For this feathering to be the result of a "different set of ancestors" we have to ask what ancestors? As it is highly unusual in this genus this would mean that: a) All other Amazona spp. that evolved from this ancestors lost it. b) That diadema represents the sole survivor of a clade and therefore is the sister of all or at least several other Amazona, incl. A. autumnalis. Both these scenarios are exceedingly unlikely. The feathering to the nares is far more likely to be the result of basic evolutionary pressure caused by mate selection (preference for large red lores) and/or founder effect. The meteor that hit the Yucatan region certainly resulted in massive changes in the ecological barriers for the animals that survived, but this is far too early - around the time the very first parrots evolved, i.e. 10s of millions of years before the first Amazona. It would be highly unusual for "only one species to escape one ecological island to reach another". The iguana is not a comparable example. The Galápagos iguanas likely evolved from a species from western South America/Central America and thereby follow the expected pattern that also can be seen in a wide range of other groups from the Galápagos, e.g. lava lizards, darwin's finches, mockingbirds. To take an extreme example, what can be seen in this Amazona would be comparable to having all the species/groups that match the expected pattern on the Galápagos and then a single species/group that originated somewhere in Asia. For an iguana with an odd distribution from a zoogeographic point of view check Brachylophus. 212.10.64.18 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If this a valley island for several species, then some could have rafted down rivers, some walked there, some flu there, and some got blown there in a storm. I speculate that the valley island is like the Galapagos, where one lizard rafted to, and some birds got blown there by the wind. The other side of hills or across a stretch of dry land is not as far as Galapagos to Asia. Presumably the animals arriving in the valley had to compete with the local animals, but the Galapagos were new islands without any land animals. What is the geological barrier that might prevent the range of the archetypal Amazon parrots extending eastwards along the Caribbean coast of South America and then inland along forest adjacent to huge rivers to the valley where diadema is found? These parrots live in valleys by rivers and much of their current range is coastal. If a geological barrier is significant, then not many or perhaps only one species would be expected to cross it. Incidentally, this is a branch of science that I do not have a formal training in. Snowman (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Shrine of the Black-tailed Gull at Kabushima...

Has anyone else ever heard of this place? I was just reading about it last night. Apparently, the shrine was raised 700-ish years ago to honour the Black-tailed Gull and every summer, about 44,000 BTGs come there to nest there and the surrounding area. A few vids. Pretty cool, huh? I just felt the urge to share that with you bird folks... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a mention of the shrine at Hachinohe, Aomori, to which it may be useful to add further info, or even a separate article. Maias (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's the plan (when I get chance) - just need to find some good sources. For the moment, here's some pics of the Kabushima gulls that I located on Flickr. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I for one fully support the article on this temple and in fact the worship of gulls in general. Could make a good DYK?. And a genuinely good example of "relationship with humans". Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you support the worship of gulls, or just an article on it? Or both? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to be worshipped in some places. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/19/seagulls-birdwatching-stephen-moss Shyamal (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mwaak?
    Mwaak?
  • Mwaak!
    Mwaak!
  • Mwaak?
    Mwaak?
  • Mwaak!
    Mwaak!

Warbler

Help is requested on Warbler; see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Warbler...a dab or not a dab...that is the question. --Una Smith (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

10,000 Birds

I contacted the blog 10,000 Birds in an effort to pimp the Bird Wikiproject out to potential interested readers (who can become writers here). Anyway, I got roped writing some articles for them (you can see my first one here) and they are willing to write something about us. I suggested they do a review of what we provide and then explain what their readers can do to to improve what we do (come and edit! Or donate images - anyone know roughly what percentage of our species/genus articles have photos?). Perhaps I could tell them a bit about some of us - what kind of birders we are and what motivates us to follow our interest in birds down this alley. Any other thoughts? By the way they are very receptive if you feel like you want to stretch your writing wings and want to write something that isn't an encyclopaedia article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting blog. Great idea to network - I have dropped hints on an Australian birding list I have subscribed to as well, which has resulted in a few images. Maybe we can have a bot do a ruin of which taxa need photos and do a data dump on the pages needing attention page. We can then pass around teh list to blogs etc. to see who can help out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (37)

American Black Vulture. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Coragyps atratus -Florida -USA-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Turkey Vulture -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think its license has changed. Can not upload now. Snowman (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
American Black Vulture. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Coragyps atratus -two perching on fence-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a wooden dugout canoe.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
New version uploaded to File:Coragyps atratus -two perching on small boat-8.jpg and bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Crested Eagle? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

IOC name standardization project sub-page

I started a IOC name standardization project page, so that we can:

  1. Keep track of where we are
  2. have a list of exceptions
  3. Collect all cases where we have to look at the latest with regard to taxonomy.

The page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/IOC names. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been lumping any taxonomically difficult ones (species we don't yet recognise/haven't split) there. Once we've moved through the list we can pick through these and work out which species we wish to recognise and which we don't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am doing the same. I think it is nice to have a collection of taxonomy cases we have to keep track of. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Great idea - we can discuss new ones and whether splitting or lumping is needed. Incidentally are we noting IOCs order sequence as it has a funny lumped Pelecaniformes, had we decided to split Phalacrocoraciformes out? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Antthrushes, antpittas, tapaculos and tyrant flycatchers up to Hammond's Flycatcher done. Per the various amendments I have left diacritic marks for now (mostly in South American biogeographical and geographical terms) and left variances between the lists that are only about hyphens and compounding (Tyrant-flycatcher not Tyrant Flycatcher or Tyrant-Flycatcher]]) - which are mostly in the old way. My god there is a lot of tyrants. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing the ovenbirds now. I think it might be good to mention when you are taking on a huge family just to avoid duplicating the effort. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (36)

Female Yellow-knobbed Curassow uploaded to File:Crax daubentoni -Philadelphia Zoo -upper body-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Ani, I have to check which of the three species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Tricky - it's a juvenile and has a much smaller bill than the adult. I think it is a Groove-billed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's a Chopi Blackbird, which also has grooves in the bill. MeegsC | Talk 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup, you are right. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Gnorimopsar chopi -Iguazu National Park -Argentina-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the browns. Not easy to tell apart, especially dead. I'll try and drop by the museum (from the stream I am assuming it is Te Papa) this week and find out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
White-headed Vulture Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Trigonoceps occipitalis -Kasteeltuinen Arcen -Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. Probably an adult (no wingbar). I can't help with the subspecies—probably swainsoni or incanus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Bateleur Eagle unsigned edit of 02:30, 23 August 2009 by User Shyamal
Uploaded to File:Terathopius_ecaudatus_-Kasteeltuinen_Arcen_-Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree. Sure looks like a Lesser to me too, for reasons listed by KSB. MeegsC | Talk 05:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed from the GBBG article, details corrected on Commons and I've put in a rename request. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a Baltic Gull. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This one doesn't look like a GBBG to me; the back and inner wings are far too light (see the "Other versions" pictures at the bottom of the commons description for other angles). MeegsC | Talk 05:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, though I wish people would include the locations of their pictures, Mila Zinkova is based in California, I believe. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The rightmost bird certainly is; you can see the cinnamon rump and tail at the highest resolution. And the bird walking left with its tail cocked also appears to be a Bristle-thighed. Not sure about all of the others, as the angle and bad light makes it tough to evaluate mantle speckling and rump/tail color. MeegsC | Talk 05:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the location they probably all are. If something turned up that wasn't it would be notable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I edited the description. I meant to say, by the way, are there any takers for the birds that are less visible at the top of the picture? They may not be seen well enough to be useful for anything, though. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Young Laysan Albatrosses. The ones further back may be Black-footed Albatrosses - but they are really hard to see. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Budgerigar - splitting off the aviculture section into a new article?

Seems plenty long enough to me now, since KvdL rejigged the article the other day. Thoughts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems ok as it is - not too long. Snowman (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The page as it is stands at about 35 kb - still within normal size of articles and plenty of room to grow. This is another to-do article....I'd not split until it grows a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess there is no particular hurry, but I would support a split at some point - for the same sort of reason that there are separate articles for Dog and Gray Wolf, or for Cat and African Wildcat. Maias (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more in terms of balance than absolute article size - but yeah, fair enough... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am in favour of splitting it off. Especially because the Budgie has been artificially bred to a point that the show budgies are much larger and there are so many color mutations. This would allow for a list of mutant colors with pictures etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Eventually yes - there is more to add to taxonomy (history thereof as well as expanding upon the fascinating genetics), ecology, which would I suspect take the article over 50 kb. A separate article at that point looks prudent, leaving a summary of aviculture on this one, and an extensive list of varieties and details on aviculture bits and pieces. I think the best thing is to start working on the article as is. I can add some ecology stuff today or tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

I've noticed that some of our recent species page moves haven't taken the associated talk pages with them. For example, Red-throated Diver has been moved to Red-throated Loon, but the "associated" talk page is still at Talk:Red-throated Diver. Can someone please move this one, so it doesn't cause problems when I try to take it to FA? Those moving pages should be sure to remember to do this as part of the process. MeegsC | Talk 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)checkY

done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kim! MeegsC | Talk 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages to move (1)

A new section of birds that need to be moved to their IOC name. Interestingly Rough-legged Buzzard isn't going to be moving, as the IOC dropped the compromise "Roughleg" in a rather terse way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Hanging-parrot to Hanging Parrot:
Cebu Hanging-parrot, Camiguin Hanging-parrot, Sulawesi Hanging-parrot, Sula Hanging-parrot, Moluccan Hanging-parrot, Orange-fronted Hanging-parrot, Green-fronted Hanging-parrot, Red-billed Hanging-parrot, Yellow-throated Hanging-parrot. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fig-parrot to Fig Parrot:
Orange-breasted Fig-parrot, Double-eyed Fig-parrot, Large Fig-parrot, Edwards's Fig-parrot, Salvadori's Fig-parrot. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought both of those are fine as they are, since like the BOC we are keeping our old compounding and hyphenation rules (per amedn 1). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The wiki does not have a compound name rule for the Hanging Parrots, because the wiki used both forms as page names and the wiki has different use of the term Fig Parrot on the species pages and the genus page. When the wiki does not have a name rule it can not be applied. Snowman (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a compound rule for any specific taxon - it is simply a case of when something can be rendered First-second, First Second or First-Second we have gone with First-second. Where we haven't it is because Pol-bot didn't do things that way. And rule is a strong word - it is how HBW does things and that is why we did it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Amendment 1 does not say that at all. Are you reading too much into what amendment 1 says? Amendment 1 says "The style of writing compound names does not need to follow the WBL". There does not seem to be any consistent name for a hanging parrot on the wiki, so I think that it is best to use the IOC World Bird Name to reduce confusion name. I see nothing in amendment 1 which says it Name-name has any preference. In fact, "Name-name" is not mentioned in amendment 1, and, nor is "HBW". Snowman (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The gist of the conversation relating to this was that we preferred the old way (which as I already explained, was First-second even if that was never written down cause it was never needed to be), and that the guidelines should be flexible. Thus, they are flexible. As such you can request the move, and you have. The move is not mandated by the change to IOC however, and I don't think it is needed and prefer the old way, so I oppose it. Clear? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you be sure of something that was not written down? Things are written down to make it clear. From the wording of amendment 1, I think that the only conclusion is that the wiki does not have a preference for Name-name. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
He can be sure of it , or at least I can, because most of our species articles with compound bird names use the form "name-name", including the ones you've pointed out here and the examples I gave in response to your question about the amendment. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with S's S on this. As you want to make those changes and have proposed them, you can give your reasons. But the only reason you've given so far is that following the IOC will reduce confusion. That's specifically what the amendment says we're not going to consider a sufficient reason in the case of compound names. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have also suggested these name changes, because they appear to be to correct names of these parrots. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As for me, I have no preference between "fig parrot" and "fig-parrot". I somewhat prefer "hanging-parrot", because the form without the hyphen can look like a parrot that happens to be hanging. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
(just a passing note) For some time Loriculus vernalis was called the "Indian Hanging Parrot". Capital punishment. Shyamal (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of bird names that look odd or may be confused with other words. Snowman (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not entitled to an opinion because I don't plan to do much of the work, if any, but I think the highest priorities should be the changes that there's a consensus in favor of, that is, not those relating only to compound names as covered in Amendment 1. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that we must stick to the words of amendment one and to logical deductions from it rather that with words that are not there and deductions that are not possible to logically determine from the words of the amendment. The key line of amendment one is "The style of writing compound names does not need to follow the WBL" and this is what people voted for. This therefore implies that compound names can follow IOC WBL, as the rest of the motion providing IOC WBL as the standard will be written with it. My interpretation of the original motion and amendment one together is that it says (in short) something like "The preferred standard on compound names is IOC, but compound names need not follow WBL." Snowman (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I was working on these parrot pages and I was looking forward to a consistent name style for compound names, one way or the other. I am applying the new name guidelines that have just been re-written. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The words of Amendment 1 include, "Changes of this type should reflect consensus." This type refers to changes in the style of compound names to conform to the WBL. So I don't see an interpretation that the preferred standard on compound names is the WBL. Instead, the only thing I can see it meaning is that we stick with what we have unless there's a consensus to make a change.
Of course, we don't have to interpret something I wrote a couple of weeks ago as if it were a law. If there's disagreement on what it means and whether everyone who voted for it had the same understanding, we can discuss it.
I sympathize with your desire to have a consistent way to write the names of the hanging(-)parrots as you work on that group. Maybe we can arrive at a consensus, as suggested in the policy. I've already given my (rather weak) opinion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"Changes of this type should reflect consensus." is a general comment about a consensus. I can not see that "this type" has the special meaning that you are now suggesting. The original proposal was to list as IOC WBL, and amendment 1 was to say that compound names need not follow the same format as seen in the IOC WBL. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Parrots

The following parrot species are under a non-IOC name, (list of scientific and IOC names):

Uncontested

These uncontested pages are moved one week after posting this list, at Wednesday August 26. If you want to contest a move, move the entry to the categories below. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Darn, checked the latest IOC changes, and they have changed the name back to what we had. Will fix. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Darn, checked the latest IOC changes, and they have changed the name back to what we had. Will fix. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Darn, checked the latest IOC changes, and they have changed the name back to what we had. Will fix. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed by IOC to name we already have. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed by IOC to name we already have. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed by IOC to name we already have. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
WP name is red-crowned parakeet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The SA species is I recall just a subspecies. The Red-crowned Parakeet was split a few years ago and apparently this list gave the name to the much smaller New Caledonian population while giving the name Red-fronted to the main NZ population. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The SA species is just that, a species. But most recent authorities (and wiki) have moved on and now use Rose-fronted Parakeet. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
WP name is Blue Bonnet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Bluebonnet links to a flower, so you might need to put "Bluebonnet (parrot)" for now. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I listed the IOC names, not what they should become here. Bluebonnet (parrot) seems the logical solution, changed above22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Bluebonnet (bird), more generic disambig. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Checked and fixed name from Mindanao Racquet-tail to Mindanao Racket-tail. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This one just has a dot behind the St. Change this one? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess that could have been due to an error when the page was started. That page move would make it consistent with the St. Vincent Amazon article, but I do not know why they are not called "Saint Name Amazon". Forshaw 2006 uses the format with the dot after the "St" (the abbreviation "St."). Snowman (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All moved! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Contested

  • or Rainbow Lorikeet
Subspecies that should keep name is not split in WP.
No. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, per wiki taxonomy. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to call it a "Yellow-collared Lovebird", having looked at many photographs of lovebirds, I think that it is the broad bright yellow collar that is the most distinctive feature. Snowman (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The only accepted exception. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • or Derbyan Parakeet

*Amazona kawalli (White-cheeked Amazon)

  • This link for Red-crowed Parakeet is already taken by another Antipodean parrot, Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae, and a South American parrot. Is this a taxonomy issue rather than a re-naming issue? Snowman (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, this is a very urgent renaming issue, as the most common name and IOC name for Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae now points at the wrong species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The scientific name is a red link, so there must be a taxonomy change. I do not understand what rename is being suggested. Snowman (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Per above this refers to New Caledonian Red-crowned Parakeet Cyanoramphus saisetti. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made a redirect for the binomial name. Red-crowned Parakeet is a confusing name for a parrot and could be one of two or three. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The binomail you were using has an extra s - hence the lack of redirect. The number of red-crowns is partly because the massive split was followed by a bout of unimaginative naming and the fact that the rest of the world has always called the original red-crown a red-fronted (because everyone hates New Zealand's bird names or something like that!). A strong case for following the IOC guidlines and dab-ing extensively so people can find what they want. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think User KimvdLinde tends to make quite a lot of typos, small mistakes, and minor omissions - that is intended to be a helpful comment. Request for more proofreading and checking prior to editing. I did not see that typo, I have fixed it, and now the red link that has confused me for several hours should turn blue. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The link is "Cyanoramphus saisseti" (I hope), I checked the name on IOC WBL and it does go blue, and I checked it in Forshaw 2006 where a subspecies is saissetti. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
User KimvdLinde copied and pasted the IOC list some time ago, and typo's in the names are theirs. I have not changed any name. And yes, the racket-tail anomaly was already there as well... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You are responsible for your own edits; however, you have a good excuse this time. The red links were a reason for suspicion. The spelling still needs to be double checked, as Forshaw 2006 lists "saissetti" as a subspecies. There are now two redirects and one needs to be deleted and I am not sure which one. The number of Ss and Ts varies. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The binomial is unclear. I checked various sources, and they differ between saisetti and saisseti. This requires a check of the original description. I will try to find it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Also see may comment above about Bluebonnet, which is a link to a flower. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Binomial solved, IOC was correct. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All moved as well, except some species that are at WP still subspecies of the rainbow lorikeet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (parrots)

I know.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I left out hyphen issues. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So is this a provisional list? and are you going to amend to list to include hyphen issues? Actually, I would not change the hyphenation that you have used. It looks like BTW means "by the way", but sometimes it means going "back to work" next. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be a favor of just move everything to teh IOC name, including hyphen cases, but I see why we should not do that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Overall, I think this list is a good basis for discussion. The new guideline suggests that moving a page of any bird popular in aviculture is potentially controversial. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added an alternative well know name after the ones that seem to be controversial to me. If preferred, I would put them in a separate list after the original list. Snowman (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to move species to a separate list. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that the list format has been amended. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am interested to see that some of the scientific names are different. I did not know "Amazona diadema" was a separate species, what is this? Is it a synonym? I think that Trichoglossus rosenbergii is mentioned as a possible species or subspecies on the Rainbow Lorikeet page. Snowman (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
WP is not up to date with several taxonomic changes, diadema is one of them. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that some are listed that do have the IOC WBL as the wiki name, but are wrongly listed because of a scientific name issue or taxonomy problem. Could the ones with an issue with only the scientific name be listed in a separate list? Snowman (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the changes seem to be New Guinea endemics. Presumably they got some feedback from people that live/work there. Annoyed to see the Cahow is now the rather dull Bermuda Petrel and that the Ifrit is the Black-caped Ifrita though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup, it is explained here: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-en.html -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Contested?

What does this section mean? Some seem to be taxonomically tricky (all them rainbow lorikeets) and some seem to be no-brainers. Cyanoramphus cookii to Norfolk Parakeet? Genius! The species only was split 7 years ago and was encumbered with an unimaginative and needlessly long name. African Grey Parrot to Grey Parrot? Surely the African is unneeded, there aren't any other parrots commonly refereed to as grey. Also, would it have not made more sense to take these more slowly? I only have so many hours of the day and barely know some of these species - the same for many other of us. A few tricky ones at a time would be a better way to deal with this especially as you profess I do not think that discussing this as one group will work. he new guideline says that parrot names can be controversial, and this suggests individual discussion on each one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think contested means that it is not simple to rename a page, because of one or several of a number of reasons. Norfolk is a county in the England and it sounds very odd that a parrot is named "Norfolk Parrot", and it is a bit like saying "London Parrot", "Oslo Parrot", or "Helsinki Parrot". African Grey Parrot is a well known name, and there is a Grey-cheeked Parakeet, and a Grey-headed Parrot, and probably others. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, I was going to say that there is a Liverpool Pigeon which is not from Liverpool, but no. We are not doing this. Controversial changes means changes that will anger one constituency or another. As in Brits call it one thing Americans another. Or aviculturists call their feathered captives one thing and everyone else something else. Not "that name doesn't make sense". Names often don't make sense. Sardinian Warblers live elsewhere and aren't even common there. American Robins aren't robins. Red Lories aren't the only lories with red or the name red in their name. Norfolk is an island. As well as a county. It is named after the island. Not odd at all, and certainly no odder than some dumb names, scientific or common. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I expect I could get used to Norfolk Parakeet after a while, but it really means Norfolk Island Parakeet and I think that would be clearer. Conures are conures, so that is not controversial as the names you have just listed. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The IOC decided to drop almost all instances of island. Christmas Frigatebird not Christmas Island Frigatebird, that kind of thing. They preferred brevity in most (but not all instances). Norfolk as a name for parrot would only be confusing if Norfolk the county had native parrots. And yes, conures are controversial, because there demands that they should not follow the IOC list - thus controversial. They are only conures to aviculturists, not anyone else. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
So for someone who does not know much about geography or parrots it is impossible to intuitively know if the name of any bird indicates that it came from an island or not. Snowman (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to provide the IOC list committee with feedback about that. In the meantime, it is just as well that the article's second line is It is endemic to Norfolk Island. Which obviously wouldn't help anyone who had never heard of the island and assumed it was a small island in the Norfolk Broads. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I that case the wiki page needs to be clarified. It should say something like; "it is endemic to Norfolk Island, which is a small island situated about XYZ miles from New Zealand in the ?Name Sea. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Now, what the hell is wrong with Caatinga Parakeet? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

African Grey Parrot

This is absolutely, positively, definitely the one species that I don't want to see renamed without a widely-advertised, full WP:RM discussion and maybe a WP:RFC with input from as many different members of the community as possible. The AGP is probably *the* quintessential parrot and is a truly iconic species, deeply ingrained in the popular consciousness. Renaming this goes far beyond ornithology or bird-keeping, IMO and it's important that we tread carefully and get this *right* (whichever *right* the community decides) the first time. If any bird article move is going to draw accusations of 'small groups of editors making unilateral decisions on behalf of the community', this is going to be the one... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was called Grey Parrot someone might think that it originated from the Grey Islands (tangential thinking - different from misunderstanding). I think that it is also a bad idea to exclude "Island" from bird names as in "Norfolk Island Parakeet" being called "Norfolk Parrot". How does anyone know from the name that "Grey Parrot" does not originate from the Grey Islands? Too much brevity can be confusing. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For me, African Grey is probably one of the very few exceptions I can see that we make. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of interest, what do you think are the other exceptions? Snowman (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For me, the exception would be when a name is widely used in several of the sub communities, like birders, aviculture and researchers. Most of the deviations suggested above are basically the preference in a single group that has to trump the official name. Those I oppose. Often, the Google count will give you the aviculture name as a preference, but that is mainly because they are most active at the internet compared to the other two who are communicating somewhat more through other channels, especially the researchers.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
What's your view on Google Scholar hits, as a matter of interest, Kim? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Google scholar could be a source to get a feel about the common name popularity among researchers. But in the wider context, I think we should keep in mind that WP is an encyclopaedia, not popularity contest, and if there is a good argument with a standardized list of names, I think you need to have very strong arguments to adopt a different name than the name of the list. I even would go further, in each case where we adopt a different name than the IOC, those common names should be in lowercase, as it is not a unique identifier that is required for a name to become a proper noun. Once a list is adopted as authoritative, those names only become proper nouns. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not directly asking this of you - it's just something I've been thinking of during the course of this discussion (I don't have an answer for it myself). Call it food for thought, if you will. Who would and should be considered to be more of an 'expert' on the species known as Aratinga solstitialis (just as an example) - someone whose Raison d'être is to observe Sun Parakeets in the wild and write about what they've learned of the species, or someone whose Raison d'être is to raise Sun Conures and write about what they've learned of the species? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither, that is the point, and that is why the question what name to use should be elevated above preference in certain circles. That is why to me, using a list of standardized names is to prefer then to debate each and every name to pieces because various fractions have their own preferences. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of any others. I think the African is unnecessary but the species is well enough known beyond aviculture that the more common name should stick. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The Moluccan Cockatoo and Umbrella Cockatoo, anyone? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not me. However, I think an exception for the African Grey Parrot is fine. I'd heard of it (under "best talker" in a 1970s Guinness Book) long before I knew there were debates about bird names. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue-fronted Amazon

Blue-fronted Amazon? Snowman (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Naw. Barely know that one myself. Parrots everyone knows would be the Scarlet Macaw, the Cockateil, Budgie, Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, African Grey and Norwegian Blue. Blue-fronted may be big in aviculture but no one amazon really goes beyond into the wider culture. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"Blue-fronted Amazon" is always called that here in the UK, and I have never heard anyone talk about "Turquoise-fronted Amazon". I understand that it is one of the four most popular Amazon parrots kept as pets. Its binomial name has got something to do with summer or blue sky. Who says turquoise sky? Snowman (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Conures

Contested Conures

Discussion of Conures

Can we solve this issue for once and for all, and name all species parrot or parakeet? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that discussing this as one group will work. The new guideline says that parrot names can be controversial, and this suggests individual discussion on each one. Snowman (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should discuss it here, and post a notice at the various pages that we are discussion it here. Currently, it is a toss up whether it is conure or not for a lot of aviculture species, some consistency would be nice. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that a New Zealand Grebe is not called a Grebe, but it is called New Zealand Dabchick. Consistency has disadvantages and advantages, and evaluation is needed. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow? Grebe and dabchick are both used (like cormorant and shag). Anyway, I must confess I have a distaste for the word conure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Parakeet and conure are both names for the same sorts of birds (like grebe and dabchick). Snowman (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And? The IOC list says New Zealand Grebe, so NZ Grebe it is.
Damn - another NZ bird called something it isn't called in here. Did they change all our names? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikilink: New Zealand Dabchick - currently opens page and is not a redirect. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That is what it was called, now the IOC changed it. We haven't changed it yet because we haven't gotten to it yet. When I said so NZ Grebe it is I meant that is what we should call it and will call it.
Snowman, is English your native language? You seem to miss a lot of what we say because we are loose with our word use and you seem to favour very strict interpretations of what we say. And quite frankly you regularly seem to misinterpret what I say. If English is not your native language I am happy to be more precise in the future. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I speak only English. "another NZ bird called something it isn't called in here" does not make grammatical sense. I think that you make a lot of typos and it often looks like you have not proofread your lines. I do not deliberately misinterpret you or anyone else. cSnowman (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

HE, can you guys stop fighting about who is the best at English? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit-conflict - Hmmm. I meant "Another name the IOC has chosen for New Zealand birds that does not match what people here in New Zealand use". There are a lot of them. I shall endeavour to be clearer when addressing you in the future to minimise the scope for confusion. And I wasn't fighting. I have consistently been misunderstood, apparently I have not been clear, will do better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll *anytime* vote against conure. That name is evidently used frequently in aviculture, but just about everyone else use parakeet. The continued use of conure also guarantees inconsistency across genera, for example Pyrrhura, where some species are regularly kept in captivity, but several species are kept in captivity very rarely or never. While a few books inexplicably still have used conure for P. devillei, P. viridicata, P. amazonum, P. lucianii, P. orcesi, P. albipectus, etc, that is nonsense as you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who's actually seen one of these species and use the name conure (in other words, they're names used in a book, but nowhere else). The same can be said about Aratinga. Consequently, consistency throughout these genera is impossible if maintaining conure. While I still prefer parakeet, I'm less bothered about the monotypic genera, with the exception of Guarouba, a species that, until recently, frequently was kept in Aratinga. A use of another generic common name (Golden Conure versus parakeets in Aratinga) would suggest the two genera are more divergent than they really are. The single Cyanoliseus will eventually be split into 2-3 species anyway. 212.10.65.1 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think conure is useful to differentiate the American ones from the Eastern ones. And "Dabchick" sounds like it should be in a different family to "grebes", but why iron out all the peculiarities? Snowman (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was actually meaning to post something along those lines. I personally find 'conure' more useful than 'parakeet' as 'conure' implies a smallish, long-tailed parrot from the New World, whereas 'parakeet' covers a large range of birds from various parts of the world. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If we are talking about what terms mean to ourselves, I personally find that conure conjures up images of people who's first reaction on seeing a wild bird flying in the sky is "that would look really cool in a small cage in my apartment". And then go act on that thought, emptying the forests and filling their apartments. But that is just me. At any rate Rabo is right. If you feel the term conure is a useful one to separate American birds then by all means suggest it to the IOC committee. Perhaps you can even get them to rename the Carolina Parakeet! It is after all an American small parakeet (or was). In the meantime the term conure is only used by aviculturists, and not by other interested parties such as birders and wildlife watchers, ornithologists or conservation workers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Would I be correct in saying that you're not particularly down with the concept of parrots as pets? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have less of a problem with species that are not endangered and are given lots of room and are kept occupied being pets. I think pets are good for people. And not always bad for the animals, especially when they have been bred for captivity. But when parrots, which are unbelievably smart, and nomadic, are threatened with extinction because people want to collect them (and the rarer it is the more valuable!), kept in tiny cages, and seen as a hobby rather than as a companion, yes, I have a problem. And I have never seen a parrot in a cage that wouldn't have looked a hell of a lot better out in the wild. Basically, aviculture to me isn't about pets (although doubtless some people who keep parrots do think of them as pets) - it is about collecting a particular "model" of bird. If you don't care about the model you'll just get a cockateil or something equally common. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I am certainly feeling less charitably towards aviculture now they are trying to hoist their special names (weren't the ones thye had good enough for ya?) on us. :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to be pedantic again, but "aviculture" means "the breeding and rearing of birds" (NSOED). Most of the non-farm side is just having a pet budgie or cockatiel. Of course I agree with you about the people who have endangered many species to have a rare bird or a good talker, but that's a tiny fraction of aviculture. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm totally opposed to people 'collecting' birds simply because they're now rare (and thus expensive) species, as though they're some sort of status symbol - but the way I see it, if someone wishes to own say, one of the large macaws or a cockatoo as a housepet (perhaps because he/she is actively seeking an intelligent, charismatic, long-lived companion), then provided that the bird has been captive bred and purchased from a reputable breeder (or even better, adopted from an animal shelter - you'd be surprised how many older parrots are in need of a good home) and the owner has done his/her homework WRT how to tame/house/feed/intellectually stimulate/exercise/deal with the particular irritating quirks of the species beforehand, I don't have a problem with it. Unfortunately, real life doesn't always work like that, what with all the avian puppy mill analogues, clueless bird sellers and impulse purchasers around. There are many, many excellent, conscientious, loving parrot keepers - but unfortunately, there are probably an approximately equal number of parrot keepers whom I wouldn't even trust to take care of a goldfish. It also strikes me as totally whack that there are tens of thousands of parrots/parakeets belonging to species that're considered threatened, or endangered in the wild, just sat around in rescue centres, waiting for a new owner. Heh, don't even get me started on the breeders who deliberately crossbreed rare species or crossbreed their fertile hybrids with pure species, caring not that they're fucking up irreplaceable bloodlines that may one day be needed to save the species. Yes, I'll agree with you that there's a heck of a lot wrong with psittaculture. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the wiki tends to inform people about conservation and biodiversity. Snowman (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is any of this relevant if we're going to follow IOC names? When I suggested exceptions in the form of an amendment I was shot down. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, after being distracted by these arguments, I came to the same conclusion. The names of these birds may be well known to enthusiastic aviculturalists, but they're not known to the general public, so they're not a good enough reason to override the standard we decided to adopt. (Incidentally, in response to Cas's preference for specific names such as "caique", I'll mention that I think "corella", "conure", and "caique" are completely opaque to over 90% of the American population. Of course, so are "tapaculo", "manucode", etc., but in the case of the parrots, we have a choice. And anyway, we have a standard.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think tapaculo is a type of Mexican/Spanish fusion bar food and manucode is the game plan of Manchester United. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_43&oldid=417203556"