Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

Sparrow template

Template:Passer for comment prior to roll out. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, but it is worth noting that few of the alt names are common, and that the order from Clement is not at all taxonomic: contrary to what Sparrow says. I think it might be better to make a Passeridae nav template instead. What do you think of that idea? This edit unsigned by innotata (Talk | Contribs) at 23:09, 11 December 2009
I do not know much about sparrows, so I will most likely be guided by what you say. Can you tidy up the species list in the "Sparrow" article so that it is suitable to be a template for the navbox? Please include the common names in the list that you would like in the template, or put them in later. Please check with the IOC list of names. Snowman (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think that it will be impossible to find a taxonomic order, so any other will do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, must we really use the stupid IOC name "Jungle Sparrow"? It is one of a good many, and they only just invented it. I think Sind Jungle Sparrow is the most common. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Have written to Frank Gill suggesting that it should be restored to "Sind Sparrow" for which there is already a vote of support from Pamela C. Rasmussen. If they do agree to change it, the name should change in their next revision. Shyamal (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: Sind Sparrow is not ideal either as Sindh is the correct spelling of the region's name. The name Sind Jungle is the historic name, invented by the species's discoverer, and is the name used in all sources I use. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, that suggestion has also been made. Not too sure that would go through, but at least it is not spelt Scinde (see Scinde Dawk) Shyamal (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the spelling is very important. As for your comment on Scinde Dawk: it gets worse still–Sinned. More on this species at Talk:Sind Sparrow. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Version 2.3 of the IOC list went live a couple of days ago and "Sind Sparrow" is now back. Shyamal (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! (Unfortunately "Gunnison Grouse" is still there, despite my eloquent e-mail.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
And another dumb name nobody uses: Russet Sparrow, for the Cinnamon Sparrow. Otherwise I see no differences from the article names. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 16:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Plain-backed, for the Pegu. I say we keep the current names, except for the Sind Sparrow. That I'm not sure about. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we use the IOC names for the rufous sparrows and move Kenya Rufous Sparrow to Kenya Sparrow and Rufous Sparrow to Great Sparrow —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Black-winged Snowfinch is Tibetan and Tibetan Snowfinch is Henri's (ach!); Chestnut-shouldered Petronia is Yellow-throated Sparrow, a very confusing name as there is also a Yellow-throated Petronia; and Père David's Snowfinch loses the accent. That's all, except that the IOC uses a rather odd generic taxonomy. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As for Père David, the IOC says, "Those who adopt the list should spell and add pronunciation marks as preferred." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the conclusion that IOC names are optional on the wiki? Snowman (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they already? Should we really follow the IOC and do all things like that shuffling on snowfinch names? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you interpret the main Bird Talk page? I think it has been decided to follow IOC names and that is what I have been doing since the vote. The voting was plagued by a series of badly written ambiguous nominations, and in some of its aspects it is not easy to judge what was decided. Perhaps it is time to have another vote. WP:CCC. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I was unaware of that. If so, there are a lot of names that need changing. As I've noted, the IOC names can be absolutely absurd: look at the petronias, for instance. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the names haven't become optional. There has certainly been a slowdown in the movin (I've been on a wikibreak for a while myself since I was burnt out and had real life things to deal with). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we really have to switch over to every single coinage that they've brought up. It looks like a lot are highly confusing, having been used for other species. I think we should default to IOC, and make lots of changes, but the example of sparrows (or worse, I'm told with sunbirds, though I don't have the details) shows some of their names to be rather problematic. Does this merit further discussion? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, a default assumes that we do indeed switch over every usage. But we do have the ability to ignore changes we particularly despise, but only if there is widespread consensus to do so. Or we can write to them and explain why they should change them back. And since we are taking a long time to chnage the names, perhaps they will be sorted by them before we managed to change them at all! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. Here's a question I can't help asking: If we are going to follow the IOC, when are we going to move (to continue to use a Passeridae example) Tree Sparrow to Eurasian Tree Sparrow? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
... and Kererū should be moved to New Zealand Pigeon. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
When someone gets around to doing the sparrows and pigeons respectively. We're all volunteers, remember? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not what we were getting at. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so what did you mean? My point was that the moves have been kind of slow lately, so if a move bothers you don't move it yet if you are writing to the IOC committee. No one is making anyone move anything - if you don't want to move something no one can make you (anymore than they can make you edit anything at all), but the articles should be moved and eventually will be. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why new users might find species page names confusing, because some have IOC names and some do not. Actually, I do not know why Tree Sparrow was not moved - as a FA it should have had high priority for a IOC name check and a move. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are sure that it is the IOC name, then you can move it yourself - look for the move tab at the top of the page. Pages can only be moved by an administrator, if the target page has some edits. For the move you are interested in the target page is a redirect with one edit only, and so you can move a page to there. If you think a page move is controversial, then bring it for discussion here first. Perhaps the talk page should explain more about IOC names and say that not every one approves of all of the IOC names. Snowman (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed, and associated subpages also. With regards to making the page tree sparrow a dab page, sounds good to me, but we should make sure that any articles specifically pointing to the FA Eurasian Tree Sparrow are fixed. Already done the [[WP:FA}} page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The species list at Sparrow is now workable for a Passeridae nav template. IOC names are used (though some are redirects for all but these species: Black-winged Snowfinch, due to confusion over names discussed here and at White-winged Snowfinch and Sind Sparrow, due to proposed reversion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to note: I've retained alt names, and I suggest they be included in a Passeridae template, for Passer species for which the IOC name is certainly not the most common (except with the rufous sparrows, where there has been a split). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing much: I notice the names you used for the Cinnamon & Pegu sparrow links are these, the non-IOC names. As for your question, "true sparrow" can refer to either. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The names are the same as the articles - it would be too confusing to have different names in the navbox to the article page names. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
What does "Sparrow" refer to? Snowman (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"Sparrow," like "warbler" refers to nothing very particular… While Summers-Smith's The Sparrows calls the genus Passer the "true sparrows," other refs I use the term for Passeridae (Clement, for instance). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Template now rolled out. If any article names are updated to IOC names, then update the navbox as well. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Does "Sparrows" in the heading for the template and "true sparrows" after the Passer genus need removing? Snowman (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, if only for perfectly clear names. 15:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly clear names are needed. I have deleted "(true sparrows)" that was placed after the genus, Passer. I have kept "sparrows" in the heading, partly because the wiki page for the family is also called "sparrows". Should it be "Old World sparrows"? The sparrows page is not very clear for the heading of the template. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
...so the family page, now called "Sparrow", needs another name? Snowman (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The only answer I can give is that I don't know. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...but you did say that; "Sparrow," like "warbler" refers to nothing very particular, which does not sound like "Sparrow" should be the common name for the Passeridae. Snowman (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sparrow could be renamed Old World Sparrow, but I think it's fine where it is now, especially as New World Sparrows are only a subset of a family, not an entire family and in most of the world the group is known simply as sparrows. However I think that the sparrow article should link to them as well as the dab page at the top. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The new world sparrows, though have been proposed as a distinct family, and are usualy seen as one of two Emberizidae subfamilies. 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) This edit unsigned by innotata
I think that the Sparrow page needs improvements about basics. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but the same could be said about many family articles. However I will be able to rectify some of this (important) articles deficiencies when my HBW Volume 14 arrives. It got mailed in October, so I should get it soon (I hope!). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please do. I don't have many resources on the family, so I'll work on the genus Passer instead. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, working on family articles is my thing. :) That's why I spend a fortune on HBW books (other than they are gorgeous treasure troves of amazingness). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you work on Ploceidae, too? This needs even more work. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep. When the damn thing comes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sparrow splits and merger

As you probably have noticed, I have decided to try to make the genus Passer a good topic, and, I hope, a featured topic. I think the taxonomy followed should be cleared out first, and that there may be one merger and three splits of species to make. The merger probably will not be controversial: it is of Asian Desert Sparrow into Desert Sparrow. The article used to give it as a subspecies in most of the text, and as a species in one spot, but I changed the article (without realising) to make it refer to a species. Most authorities recognise it as a subspecies, so if nobody objects, I'll make it a redirect. The three splits are all among the rufous sparrows (currently Great Sparrow, Kenya Sparrow, Iago Sparrow, and Socotra Sparrow). I found out about these at the IOC website, here (the IOC recognises the splits). The rufous sparrows are solitary birds by sparrow standards, and they have seven allopatric populations. This proposed split would make each a separate species. While this split has been mooted for Shelley's (Rufous) Sparrow and Kordofan (Rufous) Sparrow (currently sspp. of the Kenya Sparrow) for some time, the split for the Abd al-Kuri Sparrow is entirely new. Since nobody has ever studied the sparrows of Abd al-Kuri island, this probably has a good basis. To be certain about this, and to find why the split of the Shelly's and Kordofan is supported by the IOC, it would be good to find these papers (which I can't): Fry and Keith 2004, Redman et al. 2009, and Kirwan (2008) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The IOC lists are not a taxonomy list. I think they give every possible split a name, possibly as a catch-all. It might be right, but you need to check with a taxonomy classification and not just the IOC. One of the reasons for not following the IOC list here is because of alternative authoritative taxonomy. This is just my quick impression in case you make a lot of taxonomy changes that need to be reverted. I think it would be best to wait for erudite comments. Snowman (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I know the IOC list is not a taxonomic list, it is just where I found this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Snowman is correct that the IOC list is not a taxanomic list, but it is fairly current - it is more like us in fact, changing fairly rapidly in the face of new evidence. But their taxonomic choices are sometimes hard to explain, as their notes leave a lot to be desrired. For example they split out some of the Fijian golden whistlers but it is hard to know which subspecies to allocate to which species. That said most of your splits sound fine, although is island one that is complteley novel might be worth waiting a bit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait till I get the papers. I expect the case with the Abd al-Kuri sparrows is that the sparrows are a separate colonisation from those on Socotra, so retaining them in Socotra Sparrow would make the species paraphyletic. As for the other splits, I'm not sure. In any case, these birds, whether species or distinct subspecies, are of great conservation concern and some note. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
What should I do with Asian Desert Sparrow? This I probably can change. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've been looking at the facts on the mainland rufous sparrows that might be split, and it looks like all the evidence is for a split, except geography, which is mixed. It turns out Fry and Keith is a book, The Birds of Africa vol. 7, so I doubt they conducted the phylogenetic analysises that would clinch the matter, by showing a rufous sparrow species to be paraphyletic. I still can't find out anything on the Abd al-Kuri birds. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've found this paper, which argues for treating the Asian Desert as a separate species, but I can't find any authorities–only papers–that follow this treatment. The main author–Guy M. Kirwan–is also presumably the author of the paper on the Abd al-Kuri birds. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy Kirwan is actually a friend of mine; if you want, I could ask him if a PDF copy of the paper is available... MeegsC | Talk 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Great! If you can find any other literature on the more obscure sparrows that would be great. Now as for a conclusion as what taxonomy to adopt. I think that until further evidence comes out the Socotra, Dead Sea, and Desert Sparrows (all of which have had a split proposed by Kirwan) are best kept as single species, the usual treatment by authorities so far. (I'll make Asian Desert Sparrow a redirect). As for the mainland rufous sparrows they are probably best split, as per The Birds of Africa vol. 7. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you checked Malimbe, African Bird Club bulletins, Sandgrouse and Forktail (all journals)? MeegsC | Talk 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking for interesting papers at Forktail and Sandgrouse, though not systematically. As for "Kirwan 2008", it was reported as "in prep." in the latest of a series of articles in Sandgrouse that I can find online. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to look in the journals suggested. As for Kirwan's paper on the Abd al-Kuri Sparrow, it was in the Bulletin of the B. O. C., so I'll make photocopies of a print copy at a university library. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bird's feet

If I have not missed something, there does not appear to be much on bird's feet on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a subsection in Dactyly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a bit about counting toes going backwards or forward, but not much there about bird's feet. Snowman (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Bird anatomy strikes me as the natural place to talk about their feet. Assuming it gets too big then you could split it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk page disconnect

Can an administrator please fix the Arctic Skua/Parasitic Jaeger talk page? The article is now at Parasitic Jaeger, (with Arctic Skua as a redirect), but the talk page is still at Arctic Skua. Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Is "Parasitic Jaeger" a name the IOC made up? I have never heard of this, but I have heard "Arctic Skua" lot of times. Snowman (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
No, it's a case where they went with the North American usage (although the word is derived from German). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I thought jaeger was a regional term. I've changed the article heading to indicate that the IOC name is roughly as commonly used as the alt names. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Egg pics

If anyone is desperate for an egg image, this has has all those that were thought to occur in Britain. Out of copyright, better than nothing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth listing as a resource on the main page. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic! Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Domestic birds

I'm working my way through some of the latest Cleanup listing, and am wondering what other project members think about the inclusion of domesticated food birds (domestic duck, domestic turkey, chicken) within our project's remit. Should we only be dealing with the wild ancestors of these species? Personally, I'd vote for moving all domesticated food bird articles to the agriculture & food/drinks wikiprojects too, but these bigger "species" articles seemed a bit less clear-cut. I did make a unilateral decision to remove a handful of duck and chicken breeds articles (i.e. American Game (chicken), Pekin (chicken), Sicilian Buttercup, Pekin duck etc.) from our project, moving them instead to the agriculture and food/drinks wikiprojects. MeegsC | Talk 04:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly they belong at agriculture and maybe food and drinks. But I don't see why the domesticated species and even varieties shouldn't be here too. It doesn't cost us anything, unless I'm overlooking something. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It strikes me that if we are prepared to consider them under our remit that entails some interest in working on the articles. Do any of us have that interest? I don't. I mean, I have nothing against them, but we already have more on our plates than we can deal with. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
They are birds and within the scope of this project, and so they should be included. There are many articles that have not had any substantial edits since Polbot made them, and they are not excluded because of lack of interest. Should ornithologists be moved to biography, should bird zoos be moved to architecture, should fossil birds be moved to dinosaurs? Please stop moving birds out of the project. Please return the birds that have been excluded. I have recently done a swoop on all the these type of birds that you mention checking every one of them for basic formatting errors and typos with semi-automatic software. Here is my edit on the "American Game (chicken)" of 7 October 2009 and I could list others. Is this project going to abdicate from domesticated doves and pigeons? Snowman (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything at all on the project page about domestic breeds — and, since there is an appropriate wikiproject for those interested in farm animals — I don't see why we need to add them! However, if the consensus is that they should be, I'm happy to move all 12 breeds back — though there are the 100s more that were never assigned to our project in the first place — perhaps someone with Twinkle or AWB (Snowman?) could address those. There are a undoubtedly lists detailing all the known breeds; you might check with Steven Walling (talk · contribs), who's an active person in WP:AGRICULTURE, and who thanked me for moving the articles to their project! MeegsC | Talk 14:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The project page does say our scope includes "articles relating to [...] the keeping (aviculture) of birds". In my view, that can easily include domestic breeds. (Normally when we talk about aviculture here, we're referring to pets, but the NSOED I just looked at says the word applies to all birds raised by people.) As Snowman said, we already have a task force on domestic pigeons, which I'm sure includes many articles on breeds.
I definitely see why these articles belong at WP:AGRICULTURE, and why a participant there thanked you for including the articles in their project. But I don't think that means they shouldn't be part of our project too, unless he said something to you implying that.
Sabine's Sunbird said including these topics would suggest that the people here are willing to work on them, but I don't see it that way. It could mean more that the people who work on those articles are welcome to join this project—that's what happened with domestic pigeons. We could also have two separate projects, one for wild birds and one for domestic birds, or two task forces. Personally, I'd wait to see if there's any need for a separation like that. But I'll be interested to see what others think about this whole subject. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I fear that a division like that could be too polarised. Snowman (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
My opinion on this matter is that it is hard to draw a line between what is related to agriculture, and what to birds. For this reason I think that at least some pages on domestic animals, the main pages for each domestic species included. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I created several of the domestic bird (and mammal pages simply to keep the Thanksgiving/Christmas/recipe/rearing stuff separate from proper wild birds. Having said that, I don't have any concerns about them staying within the project. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Right. I've moved back the ones I moved out, so anyone interested can get to work on improving them! Someone else can move the 100s of other breeds (which were never assigned to this project). There are lists available: List of chicken breeds, List of turkey breeds, List of duck breeds, List of goose breeds. MeegsC | Talk 01:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
While adding the BirdTalk WP banners I came across about 180 ducks, turkeys, geese and chicken breeds. If the software worked, there were about 80 already on the WP Bird project, and I added about 100 new ones to the WP bird project. There are three GA - should these be added to the list here. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not? If they are part of the project they should be listed. Maias (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A bot does counting every few days to update the article statistics. The main page will need to be updated by editing, if there is a consensus to add them there. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • All three of which I brought to GA, and as MeegsC said, I don't think chicken breeds need a WikiProject Birds banner. The main reason is that currently it is the general practice to remove the WikiProject Mammals banner from cow, pig, sheep and horse breeds. There may be borderline cases (such as Emu) but in general the agriculture project never marks livestock articles with WP Bird or Mammal. For horses, the agriculture project lets them alone and usually only puts them under the specialized horse WikiProjects. Consistency in categorization is the ideal goal, and currently almost all articles are not duplicate tagged with the project of basic taxonomy. Otherwise we might reach the point where every plant, bird, and mammal is tagged under Projects Earth and biology as well. And frankly, I don't think WikiProject Birds needs or deserves the accolade of having three more Good Articles as feathers in its collective hat when it did nothing to help. Steven Walling 18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, if we are going to start including these articles within the scope of our project, we should probably make a note of it on the WP:BIRD page and note that (presumably) we defer to WP:AGRICULTURE on matters of naming and style for those articles. Our rules about naming used for species and taxa wouldn't apply, and presumably they have their own. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There have been about 90 of these bird species in the WP Bird project for a long time, so this inclusion started a long time ago. I do not think that the IOC have names for these, so amendments to the main page are not needed. The Doves and Pigeons task force is in a similar situation. Snowman (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (50)

  • 500. File:Sturnus vulgaris -England -standing-8.jpg. Probably photographed in October in SE England. To confirm subspecies, and if possible, male or female, breeding plumage or not. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    Subspecies ID probably isn't 100% possible, as there are more than one which might be present in SE England in Oct. (though only the nominate vulgaris is really likely). It's a male, which you can tell by the pale blue base to the bill; a female would show pink there. It's in non-breeding plumage (which you can tell by the heavy speckling).
  • Some details added to image description without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk)
  • How can it be anything but nominate? The other races are mostly non-migratory including faroensis and zetlandicus, or are very far away like poltaratskyi. The bird shown looks like a classic vulgaris. I can't see any plumage features which suggest poltaratskyi or tauricus. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. When I was doing an image web-search for the provisional identity, I thought I found images of pairs with male and female showing different plumage (not just eye colour difference). Snowman (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You are right, the female is a typical Anas female, brown not chestnut, no white wing bar etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Plumbeous Ibis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Crane Hawk. MeegsC | Talk 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It's the South American subspecies (sylvicola), identified by its dark flanks; the African birds have grey flanks. MeegsC | Talk 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Some of the other photographs in the flickr photostream were from South America, but it did not specifically say where this duck was photographed. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IOC 2.3 revisions.

Christmas come early. Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae goes back to being Red-crowned Parakeet. In a move that will please Snowman, Amazon kawalli goes back to being Kawall's Amazon. And all the Rhabdornis are back to being Rhabdornis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. No probs. Still no luck with the Conures (ducks to avoid thrown objects)? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

aaargh Clements....

...in its changes, it has Strigopidae for Nestoridae ... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot of interesting things in there though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Checked it, and it is correct. Fix names. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Should be deleted, is effectively an empty category. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Category redirects are for empty categories. The point of a category redirect is to point people to the right direction. This category redirect is useful in my opinion. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't object restoring it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
... and your edit summary says "fine with me", so please restore the category redirect. The deleted page says; "23:09, 22 December 2009 KimvdLinde (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Nestoridae"." Snowman (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sad really, I thought "Nestoridae" had a nicer ring to it..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Which one has ICZN priority?
Did anyone else recognize the Melanopareiidae yet? I have pondered like 3 boxes of suboscine skins for the last 2 months or so (SE Brazilian collection from the 60s). One Melanopareia among them, and relatives galore. And yeah, they're very much "Tapaculos? That?! NO." But I would really want to see them tested against moar Thamnophilidae in particular (though having Terenura is a good start) and "tracheophones" in general...
If it sticks to Conopophaga despite all attempts to draw it into Thamnophilidae (or "Formicariidae"? Who knows.), I'd say the family is good. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you add that? If we err, then at least on good authority :) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Have added it and cited. Changed the taxobo as well to reflect the change. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the heading if this section only becomes obvious after reading this section. I think that it would not be initially self-explanatory when linking from elsewhere to here. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Strigopidae has ICZN priority per first reviser. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Journal title

Can regular readers of Acta Rer. Natur. Mus. Nat. Slov please tell me the full title? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

I am certainly not a regular (nor even occasional) reader, but the abbreviation seems to refer to: Acta Rerum Naturalium Musei Nationalis Slovaci, Bratislava. See here. Maias (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't find that one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Family index to HBW

In case it's useful to anyone, a birder named John van der Woude has posted a family-level index to HBW as a Word file here. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (51)

Tricky. I found it difficult to narrow down in the HBW selection. Clearly Ptilinopus fruit dove. The yellow head stripe narrows it down further, but none of the ones in my book had grey head but green neck. However the Central Park Zoo site had this page with the species illustrated again, it seems to be a Coroneted Fruit-dove, which mostly matches my pictures except that the head is greyer than my pictures. I can't rule out the possibility that it had some ancestors of another species (a [pale race of the Rose-crowned Fruit-dove perhaps). I'd appreciate more thoughts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, our existing photo of this species is misidentified. File:Ptilope à couronne lilas.JPG has a bright orange stripe across the shoulder, which the Coroneted Fruit-dove does not have. The only species that does is the Superb Fruit-dove. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have done an internet search and it seems to be a match. Some of these doves look similar, so more opinions welcome. Uploaded to File:Ptilinopus coronulatus -Central Park Zoo-8a.jpg on commons and swoped into the infobox. Previous infobox image rename underway. Snowman (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
This may be another view of it. Does it help identification. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Query - the head looks very pale in the original photo. Why couldn't it be Grey-green Fruit Dove? The pale forehead, yellow bar and grey face seem to fit, esp for P. p. chrysogaster (although this id can't be right if the second pic really is the same bird) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The background and leaves tend to suggest that both photograph are of the same enclosure and I think that that original image has a lovebird tail just included in the upper right corner. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


*Chalcophaps indica - but what population ? Shyamal (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The one to the right is most likely a Ferruginous Duck (once known as the White-eyed Pochard) Shyamal (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the one on the right is a male Ferruginous Duck, and the left is a female Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is a Meller's Duck (I recognise it, and I've checked in Madge's Wildfowl), but I'm not sure what the confusion species are. The Maller's is a rare duck, but it is in a lot of big zoos, especially in England. If it is a Meller's sexing will be difficult from this image. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anas melleri -Jersey Zoo -UK-4a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
And yes, it is certainly a Meller's Duck. The tail looks a bit odd, though, without white on the top. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Pompadour Cotinga Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirm male. Females of this species are grey with much less white on the wings. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Speckled Tanager, I'd say, although I haven't got a tanager book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Check out these photos of Speckled Tanagers. There is a very clear change in colour between the head and the throat on the face, and the face is overall more yellow. The spotted is pale across the whole face, like the mystery bird. I think it is a Spotted Tanager. Neither of the field guides I read on Google Books mentioned sexual differences, so presumably they are similar. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have removed this bird from the species page while awaiting opinions. According to ISIS the the Dallas World Aquarium have 7 Speckled Tanagers, but the location is not provided in the flickr photostream. There are more Spotted Tanagers in zoos. I have looked at photographs on the internet, and I think it is a Spotted Tanager. From the images I have seen it seems that the underside and the lower half of the face of the Speckled Tanager are whiter and more sharply demarcated than that of the Spotted Tanager. Pending further comments I will probably change the image name tomorrow. Snowman (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ibisbill

This is listed as a stub family, and I've been doing some work on it. However, the Biology Letters reference for the taxonomy places it squarely in the Charadrii. Do we defamilyise it and change the taxobox? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, when we scoot oystercatchers and avocets and stilts into the Charadriidae (not Charadrii, I believe). Look more closely at the tree. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The paper in question (which can be read here) warns We refrain from suggesting systematic revisions for shorebirds at this time because gene trees may fail to recover the species tree when long branches are connected to deep, shorter branches, as is the case for some of the enigmatic taxa.. But its position certainly warrants mention in the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. To be precise, the groups I mentioned above and the ibisbill form a clade on their tree (though with low support) within the Charadriidae. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tangara

Tangara is currently a redirect to CityRail T & G sets about Australian trains, so a lot of bird pages currently link to this article on trains. Tangará is used for several place names. I suppose that there should be a page "Tangara (disambiguation)", and keep the page names as they are, and I do not think that the primary use of "Tangara" is the genus of birds. I could change all the links on the species pages from "Tangara" to "Tangara (genus)" pending comments. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest making "Tangara" the dab page, for which there is evident need and, as you suggest, linking the species pages directly to "Tangara (genus)". Maias (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I could do that, if Tangara is not a well used word for the train in Australia. Snowman (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not that well-known since I never heard of it. OK - I will start making "Tangara" a dab page. It can always be moved to "Tangara (disambiguation)" if we want it for the genus (which I would be quite happy with). Maias (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Being in the UK, I did not know about the use of Tangara in Australia for the train; however, there are a number of links redirected through Tangera to the train page. I think it would be better to decide what to do first, because there are a number of links on more than 50 pages to check and move. Do you think it should go to a formal wiki request somewhere? because everyone here would probably think that the primary page should be the bird genus. Snowman (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have created the dab at Tangara and redirected most train links to the train page. As there were several more bird links than train links, I did not think that it would be controversial. I would also not oppose making it the primary page for the genus if that's what people want, and doubt that any formal request would be necessary, given that it was only a redirect previously anyway. Maias (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the new dab page is a well made. The article on trains has about twice as many hits as the page on birds. Before the move the former redirect "Tangara" to the train page was getting about the same amount of his as the bird page. These statistics indicate that making the page on birds the primary topic is controversial and is most likely to be incorrect. I think that there is no primary topic, so Tangara should be kept as the dab page. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Tangara trains were limited to Sydney (which is where I live). They are sort of notable here but not greatly so - FWIW. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chestnut Sparrow

As most active participants in the WikiProject probably know by now, I'm trying to get all the articles on birds of the genus Passer up to good article status. I think that Chestnut Sparrow looks like it is just about ready to be submitted for good article review (though it lacks illustrations, and still needs some work to the text, especially in the lead and the first section), so I would greatly appreciate any comments, suggestions, or improvements. Comments on House Sparrow and Saxaul Sparrow as they stand would also be welcomed. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments at Talk:Chestnut Sparrow, Snowmanradio. I'll see what I can do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have put smaller and smaller issues further down my list of things to clarify in the article. It probably needs other people to copy edit and comment on it now. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
There is the article Passer, and I don't want another page to bring up to some standard (FL, in this case). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there too many species in Passer to make a chart as with Nuthatch? (There are 15-28, and 24 have articles, though I'm going to start two more, as previously discussed.) I certainly don't want to work on all of the sparrows (Passeridae), and I doubt I'll find anybody interested. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"List of sparrows of the Passer genus" will be a shorter list, and shorter that the list of Amazona parrot species. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea. I don't see much use, and I won't work on the list. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, you have a better idea of what is going to go into the Passer genus page than me. Snowman (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cecropis

Any info on the etymology of this genus name? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Cecropis? I can look in the bird name etemology book at uni, but since the genus is a split from Hirundo there might not be an entry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I know this one, but I don't remember it, and if you can get at this paper describing a fossil plant with the same name you might be able to get an idea of what it means (but not a citation). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the tribes in Athens who apparently spoke a refined Greek. [1] [2] [3] Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for misspelling, and thanks. The Cecropia tree is named after the half-dragon mythical Attic king Cecrops I. It's difficult to see what either the tree or the swallow have to do with the tribe/king, but something vague and Greek will do as an etymology. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Acanthizidae

It seems that there were some changes in the taxonomy of this family according to the IOC. Is anyone here who has the original sources to verify the changes? (IOC - List of changes) --Melly42 (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The three New Zealand species are no real suprise, they have been only ever tentatively placed with the Acanzids. Actually, even we didn't place them there, we have all three of them lumped with the whistlers. The Goldenface has always been an enigma and was lumped with the whislers for the want of anywhere better to put it, I guess that its position has finally been resolved. I'll look at the papers tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New bird stub

Re Non-breeding, a page I stumbled upon; any suggestions? Snowman (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to plumage? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes; maybe merge to Plumage#Eclipse plumage if any content is useful. Maias (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Eclipse plumage is one kind of non-breeding plumage, though, isn't it? The sort in ducks, and I don't know what other birds. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
So, with birds that exhibit seasonal reproductively-related plumage changes, what is the difference between the basic or non-nuptial plumage and the eclipse plumage? My understanding was that they are pretty much the same the same thing, even though the term 'eclipse plumage' seems to be used most often with waterfowl. Maias (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bird families with stub articles

I'm gradually working the remaining non-passerines up to start class, and I'll do the two kingfisher families next. Unfortunately, I have no good sources for any of the passerine families that are still stubs. Any takers? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll take on Vanga: some others might be interested in this one. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for taking vanga. I started it before seeing this. Tigershrike (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No, please do. I don't think anybody minds with this sort of thing except in very special circumstances—where there is the potential for confusion or conflicting edits. I'm not going to get a start on this for a month or so, I expect. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nommed vanga and cinclosomatidae at DYK. FWIW. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely some people here must be interested in the two Old World warbler families? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They will have to wait until I get home from housesitting in a weeks time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (53)

Yup. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Some kind of Milvus kite; looks like a Red Kite in particular, but I don't believe that species is found in Sudan. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a Red Kite, but well south of the normal range. Only other possible is Black-eared Kite the eastern birds have much paler wing panels than Western Black Kite. I've seen lineatus, but shyamal might be able to give a definitive identification if it is the Asian bird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I can only say it does not look anything like govinda. According to this checklist migrans is the commonest species there. It certainly has the nice contrast between the outer primaries and pale inners for M. m. lineatus but the tail fork is a bit too deep. The local M. m. aegyptius would need to be considered. Unfortunately, I have no references available. Shyamal (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Presumably P. m. saturatus. Only subspecies in area. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If it also looked like the local subspecies, it would make the identification even more convincing. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is browner than nominate, so it fits. Differences in this species are more to do with tones and size, and since we really can't judge size in a photo, we have to go with colour and locality data. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I know it is difficult, but it looks like an interesting photograph to show on the species page eventually, and I was looking for all the evidence available to identify it. According to the species page, this subspecies has a larger beak too. I will add the Japanese subspecies to the commons file description. Snowman (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It was taken by Jim, so I'm gonna assume he knew what he was photographing! Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not notice the author. If I had noticed the author, I would have asked him. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a long time since I've seen that - very poor image, probably best listed for deletion since we have much better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That reminds me, I have an awful photo of a Tanna Fruit Dove. I've been wondering if it is siply too awful to upload. or if the difficulty in getting a shot of that species means I should anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded some "place-holders" from flickr for rare birds (like this one "File:Amazona versicolor -St Lucia-5a.jpg") until a better image pops up. I have seen some photographs that are too bad for place-holders. I would say use your judgement and decide if you want to show it or not and if it would be helpful for the wiki or not. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd say immature white morph Western Reef Heron Egretta gularis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of the Indian Ocean race schistacea. MeegsC | Talk 03:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Egretta gularis -Egypt-8.jpg on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Maned Duck Chenonetta jubata female (of course) with ducklings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed a Brown-headed Barbet; not sure which race. MeegsC | Talk 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
To me it looks generally pale and I do not know why that is. It seems to me to have pale cheeks and resemble a "White-cheeked Barbet". Snowman (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. You're right Snowman; this doesn't quite look right for Brown-headed Barbet after all. I was going from memory, as all my books are currently packed in boxes following a recent move! I'll try to dig my HBWs out in the next few days and have a look. Sorry about that! MeegsC | Talk 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is White-cheeked. In this region, Brown-headed is really a bit of a rarity although some historic writings make it appear it is the other way round and possibly only reflect poor identification material at that time. Shyamal (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. White-cheeked Barbet uploaded to commons at File:Megalaima viridis -Bangalore-6.jpg and bad name wiki file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds to-do

Would it be a good idea to unprotect that little thing at the bottom of all the banners (Template:Birds tasks), or at least for some admins to update it? It hasn't been edited since July 2008, and the two specific tasks on it were taken care of months ago. I suggest we make a more typical to-do template, like these: Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/tasks and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents/to do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorta related and something I was just thinking about this afternoon... Category:Birds articles needing expert attention and Category:Birds articles needing attention? Good idea to start working through those (maybe add some of the articles in those cats to the to-do list)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I've unprotected it. Should have done it a long time ago really. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I've expanded it, using the various other to-do lists of the project. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (52)

Confirm. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Kelp Gulls shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
White-winged Snowfinch, yellow bill means winter plumage, sexes alike in winter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Montifringilla nivalis -Swiss Alps-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, Common Nighthawk. Natureguy1980 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC).
All four photographs of this bird in the flick-photostream are now uploaded to commons. One is in the species infobox replacing a lower resolution image. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it a female? Snowman (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It attained FP status on the English wikipedia today. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
looks like Australian Koel Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Genus has a complicated history of classifications. Do the image description or the file name need amending? Snowman (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sparrow GAs

Chestnut Sparrow is up for GA review: anybody interested in reviewing it? The information on behaviour is spotty, but this is because of how little known this species is. I'm going to work on Spanish Sparrow and Saxaul Sparrow next, and it really looks like a Passer good topic is feasible. I'm going to put some effort into each article, but I do not have enough references some of the African species (e. g. the Kenya Sparrow). Anybody interested in these? Another potential candidate for a good topic is Fringilla; I'm surprised all the species of this small group of interesting, common finches from Europe have rather stubbish articles. I've recently added little bits, and section headings to each article except Fringilla, still a stub. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll get to it. I do try to be a little fair at GAN and work through some older ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Just a reminder that the project has regularly generated cleanup listings to help us target those articles which have been tagged as needing improvements of one sort or another. A few of us have been working on these now and then, but we're fighting a losing battle; the number of tagged articles grows monthly, and we have a backlog of issues dating to 2006! If others could maybe chip in on an article (or two or three) once a week, that could help turn the tide — or at least reduce the backlog to three years instead of four! MeegsC | Talk 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't say this, as one who rarely looks at the clean-up list, but I'm surprised that none of the FLs are listed. Most are inadequately referenced and have glaring MoS errors like fully capitalised headings. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Gawd, don't make more work...it is a scary enough list already... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I look at the list. A lot of pages, though, are either on broad topics, on pet parrots and finches, or on birds I don't know about. I'm no expert on the Mariana Mallard, but I'll be giving it the "expert attention" needed soon. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 14:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at a few - I have removed a section from Coturnix which appeared to be subtle vandalism - very weird to say the list. There is still an aviculture section there I am not sure about at all, having never ket quail....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And then there are some tough ones...Higher waterbird is interesting - I'd not heard the term before. Anyone more familir with the consensus input into that page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me like someone was having a good laugh when they came up with that. I'd be inclined to get rid of it. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I wouldn't believe it if just you said it, but it seems you are right. I don't know of any proposed superorder of that sort proposed by anybody! —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be inclined to put it up for deletion. It looks like a phrase that has been pulled out of context. PS: Have nominated it for deletion. Shyamal (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hackett et al. proposed precisely this taxon, and it's adopted at tolweb as stated in the article. However, they call it "waterbirds". Those who don't have access to Science can read about the article here. I'm not saying it will convince you, but it is serious published research, and if the person who wrote our article did any OR, it's the English name of the superorder, not the superorder itself.
Sorry to suggest work for other people, but is Hackett et al. being taken seriously enough that someone should write an article here on it, including well-sourced criticisms? I don't know enough to do it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't ascribe that much importance to Hackett et al.: I think the best description of it was something like "a calibration and confirmation of studies like Ericson et al. 2006"—Ericson being perhaps the most important paper in this matter. Also, the fact that Hackett and colleagues gave an English name shows they aren't sure about making real taxonomy changes, yet. I'm pretty convinced by Hackett et al., I just don't think that it is time to make changes yet—and the checklists and ornithologists' unions take the same stance. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Skua species: strange format

The listing of species at Skua#Species shows three subspecies of Stercorarius antarctica, the Brown Skua, in an an odd format:
Stercorarius (antarctica) hamiltoni, etc.
Is this correct or should these be changed? Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's correct—it means they may be separate species, in which case they'd be called Stercorarius hamiltoni, etc. This is used in many bird articles here, but maybe it needs some explanatory text. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've never seen this before - was sure it was wrong.
I've just taken a quick look around some of Wikipedia's articles on taxonomy and don't see this format mentioned anywhere. IMHO, some mention of this should be on Wikipedia somewhere. Can anybody either point me to it, or suggest an appropriate location to insert such a reference?
Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk)
I put one at Subspecies, which may or not be the right place. I'm now thinking that Trinomen might have been better. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Aussie mudnesters

I've been expanding one of the remaining family stubs, Corcoracidae. However it turns out, according to the HBW entry I'm using, that Corcoracidae is the junior synonym by a whole year, to Struthideidae (something wikispecies and Wikipedia helpfully suggests I might be looking for Struthionidae). So I used the opportunity to move the article to Australian mudnester (I'm not sure why the Australian is needed, as I am unaware of any other mudnesters outside Australia, but that was what the HBW used), but I was wondering what people thought of [4]? Should the family be Corcoracidae or Struthideidae? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Struth! (As they might say down there.)
As far as I can tell from looking at the ICZN, the more recent name replaces the older name if the older name hasn't been used since 1899 (not the case here) or if the younger name is "in prevailing usage" for the family and the older family name is in use for a subfamily, which may be the case here, as there are references to a subfamily Struthideinae of the Corcoracidae. Some of the posts at birdforum implied that the subfamily name (Struthideinae) has to be used in "taxonomic works". I'm not sure what those are—works that describe and circumscribe taxa?—and I'm not sure where that is in the code.
If those two conditions aren't met but people want to use the newer name for reasons of stability, they have to ask the ICZN for a ruling.
Lots of swallows build their nests out of mud. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Certainly true about the swallows, but they aren't usually referred to as mudnesters as a group (and they also occur in Aussie). No matter, Australian mudnesters is fine. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No way is that a common usage here (nor that struth...). To the extent it's used, the hyphenated form seems more common: [5] [6] [7], though I see Heinsohn prefers it without.--Gergyl (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a personal preference? Is there an alternative common name? I'm not particularly bothered, I simply went with what the HBW used due to the difficulties with the scientific family name. There doesn't seem to be any good name for a small and not widely known family (well known as the individual species might be). Incidentally, HANZAB also uses Australian mudnester. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I recall them being called 'mudnest builders' in my 70s birdbooks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to go with Heinsohn (seems authoritative ... the famous George's son? (they're co-published)). FWIW, Frith (1977) has Australian mud-nesters, do does Simpson and Day (2004); Flegg (2002) too, though he goes with just the bare Mud-nesters. That's all I have to hand here atm.--Gergyl (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Synonyms

I have just added in the taxobox of Ratite all the synonyms and author info from George Robert Gray's book. Before I do others I want to get a feel for what the community thinks. Is it too cumbersome? speednat (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as is is appropriately referenced I think an encyclopaedia like the wiki should contain this sort of information. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
why do we still have a ratite page? Isn't it time to merge it with Paleognathae, given that ratites are not monophyletic? Anyhow, scientific names other than genera and species (and subgenera, subspecies, etc.) are not italicised, and I see no benifit in referencing every synonym as is done. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any synonyms in the taxobox. They are generally non-notable, and just clutter the box, especially for those species which have lots of obsolete synonyms. If there are any notable synonyms such as original binomial as give by first authority, or one that has become obsolete because of a recent taxonomic change, these should be mentioned in the text any way. Having lists of synonyms is equivalent to having multiple navboxes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, at FA where image placement is important, having a taxobox and a list of synonyms and a map means half the article can't having images without sandwiching text contra MoS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I rather disagree with this. For many taxa, synonyms are many, and important. (And a lot of users think all synonyms should be in all articles). Where else but the taxobox can you put them? And never mind this silly little guideline on the MoS: what else can you do; lots of mostly history-related articles are pretty much covered from top to bottom with info- and topic- boxes. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, I agree with putting them in and the fact that the taxobox is designed with the synonym built in would make me think that is where they should go. I will continue, always referencing, and footnoting. I am using old books from Gray and Sharpe. speednat (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
On another note I am creating a list in my sandbox, to be released when a little more plumped up, that will list all Taxon authorities and all names credited to each.speednat (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinclosomatidae vs Eupetidae

According to HBW 12 (2007) all genera in the family Cinclosomatidae belong to the family Eupetidae. Are there any current studies which outdate the HBW taxonomy (written by Walter E. Boles) and confirm that jewel babblers and whip birds belong no more to the family Eupetidae? --Melly42 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The HBW basically admits that the taxon is a wastebin. The Rail-babbler is unrelated to all of them (and is closer to the rock-fowl and rockjumpers of Africa) so the name changed when they jumped ship. The IOC has the name of the remaining genera as Psophodidae, not Cinclosomatidae, but even then the thing is a mess. This article finds it polyphyletic, and suggesting that the jewel-babblers and quail thrushes are one family, the whipbirds another, and the Crested Bellbird, along with two others is another. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is interesting to see that the Christides & Boles checklist (2008) still treats Psophodes and Cinclosoma as part of the Eupetidae family [8] --Melly42 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New navbox

Template:Birds-of-paradise for discussion prior to roll-out. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are all there any common names for genera? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Only the manucodes, riflebirds, astrapias and parotias. My only suggestions for the navbo are shorten "Likely to be hybrids" to "Likely hybrids" and link hybrids there instead of above the list. And perhaps alter the sequence of genera to follow the latest paper (the only molecular study of the whole family) which I just discovered today and is really interesting - [9]. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The pages of the genera are not named by common names. What is "Only the manucodes, riflebirds, astrapias and parotias" meant to mean? Will the family page will be organised according to the sequence to this paper too? Snowman (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The pages of the genera are not named by common names No they aren't, but they could be. In the case of the astrapias and parotias it doesn't matter because genus name is the same as the common name, so that just leaves the manucodes and riflebirds having common names as well as a genus name. As for organising the family page, yes, I plan to work in the paper's findings, but shifting the order isn't urgent. I only just found the paper this morning, and am still only early on in the process of expanding, correcting and citing the family article, and doing any related fixes to associated articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and see Template:Ramphastidae etc. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Cicinnurus can be called the sickletails (although most authorities split the genus) and the sicklebills are a genus too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I have left the scientific names of genera in the navbox, because I see no clear explanation or listing of common names here or in articles. I will be interested to see the updates on the Bird-of-paradise article with the common names, and information from the new paper. Snowman (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: new navbox rolled out to 74 pages and presentation in navbox modified. Snowman (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It looked better collapsed (single line). Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not only a visual issue. In the current three-line format it takes one click to view the listing of wikilinks. The one-line format takes two clicks. I welcome more opinions on this partly presentational and partly ease-of-use issue. Snowman (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand, in the one line format I clicked once and saw all the links. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I was not happy with that version, because the column for genera also included hybrid. I have moved on to a better version - see the two cols in the top half and one heading for the lower half. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it was better, it was less obtrusive and didn't overemphasise the importance of the hybrids. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the intrageneric hybrids be placed in their genus and intergeneric hybrids at the bottom? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the hybrids should be on the template at all, really. The interest in hybrids is in the evolutionary consequences and implications, beyond that and perhaps a list like what we already have I am not even convinced they deserve separate articles for each. There is little that can be said about each one compared to actual species, most of the information could be merged and contained in a tabular list at List of bird-of-paradise hybrids. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. It is one line now. The hybrids are viewed with a separate click, so they do not have to be viewed with the species. Note that the new navbox structure avoids hybrids being listing under the "Species" heading, which I thought would be misleading to some. If I was to write about all Ara hybrids, I think I would write an article "Ara hybrids" and write a section on each one and show available photographs, as well as general information about them. I might have to adapt, and if one or two Ara hybrids needed more space then separate pages could be made for these. I do not think that all of the Birds-of-paradise pages can easily be condensed into a single list or article; however, a separate page listing the hybrids might be split from a much expanded Birds-of-paradise page. The navbox probably needs to include all the pages on the topic including any pages on hybrids, extinct species, and hypothetical extinct species, and any lists. More ideas are welcome to develop the new navbox further. Snowman (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As to whether all hybrids can be condensed I suspect you may be correct. Relatively commonly occurring hybrids like Barnes' Astrapia probably warrant their own page. Highly uncommon hybrids with only a single specimen, like Schodde's Bird of Paradise, probably lack enough information to ever get past stub status, and could be merged into a list. Moreover I agree that a list of hybrids would good for the expanded family page I am working on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Notice

Done this, since we are active. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Peters" checklists are online!

The Internet Archive has scanned all the (still-copyrighted) Check-List of Birds of the World! This 16-volume (including index) work was prepared throughout the mid-20th century, first by Peters, then by Mayr and eventually by Paynter (of Ornithological Gazetteer fame) - Cottell and Greenway and Traylor also contributed to some volumes.

As regards taxonomy ist is showing its age of course, but as a resource for nomenclature - synonyms, authors, dates, type localities and so on - it is extremely useful and probably still the #1 ressource in the world. It is what one turns to when the HBW does not contain the necessary information. The geographical information is extremely detailed, and as opposed to the current check-lists it has all the data for each and every subspecies, plus information on "mysterious" taxa (such as hybrid hummingbirds described as good species, or indeterminable taxa from old descriptions).

You can grab them here - the search results also yield some other check-lists, such as previous editions of the AOU list. I grabbed the Peters lists one week ago, and as regards my thesis they have already saved me many work-hours I'd otherwise have spent travelling from collection to library and back. Especially when I'm at home evaluating my collection data, it is sooooo helpful to have the entire series as PDF. As I need to read a lot of late 19th-century stuff, where genus placements were often very different from today, the index is extremely helpful - you can simply look up all those obsolete names, and even if you are not directed to the presently valid taxon directly, then it's trivial to find it out what it is.

If you find, for example, a Calliste brasiliensis mentioned in a 1890s source, the "Peters" lists make it simple to find out that it's now Tangara mexicana brasiliensis. With all these out-of-copyright sources becoming available, the lists are a must-have. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Theses

Eastern Towhee has got a very long list of references and theses in the "Further reading" section. Are their any guidelines about listing theses? Snowman (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know (nor do I don't know what exactly you mean), but at any rate those "further reading" sections are not essential or often not useful, so I expect nobody will mind if you cut them shorter. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have used theses in articles before. It isn't ideal, but they contain information unavailable elsewhere sometimes and generally are reasonably reliable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I decide whether to cite theses based on the content of each thesis. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any wiki guidelines on using theses as sources of information. What about listing theses in the "Further reading" section? Snowman (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I asked the question at WP:Reliable sources once. Consensus seemed to be that if you need to you can, with the proviso that as noted by innotata, you take them on a case by case basis and work out how reliable they are. In the real world theses are cited in journal articles routinely where the information is not published elsewhere. With regard to the huge lists of sources (articles, books and theses) in the past these have been moved to the talk page where they provide a useful resource for anyone wanting to expand the article and incorporate the citations. Theses are often the least useful of these as in many instances they are not published online or available outside the university where the course was sat. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
What should be done with the lists on the Eastern Towhee article? Snowman (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, they can be shunted to the talk page. One day someone will find them useful. In the meantime they unbalance the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if these lists are copyvio or not. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it, more likely they are the output of some programme ransacking a literature database. I'm not sure you can copyright a list of articles anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Eastern Towhee article reorganized and lists put on talk page. Snowman (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
CephasE added all those back in 2007, mostly for North American birds, I think. Here is the discussion at this page where he said he wasn't going to do it any more. Dysmorodrepanis suggested commenting them out, which I think amounts to about the same thing as moving them to the Talk page, though having them commented out in the article might make things a little easier for people who cite one. I've also seen articles where the Further Reading is in some kind of window with a scroll bar, so it doesn't take up as much room, but I can't find one right now. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Scrolling windows are against the guidelines. Snowman (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That could be why I couldn't find one. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Eastern Towhee did have a scrolling window. Snowman (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so those scrolling windows are against the guidelines? Which ones? I keep trying to remove them from the references sections of various articles, but my edits are undone. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a guideline I read ages ago and sometimes I find them difficult to find again, because a normal page search does not search these sort of help pages. Anyway I have managed to find it at Wikipedia:ASL#Avoid_scrolling_lists. I hope it helps. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, typical good-faith edit (and in fact quite useful) that messed up the layout though. I have outcommented (with "<!-- -->") them in the articles I edited, so that they are still in the sourcecode but do not clutter up the page. They can then be dealt with one by one, as any editor sees fit.
Theses are often a source for information that cannot be found in such breadth and depth in normal journal articles. Alexandre Aleixo's woodcreeper thesis comes to mind. Mine (which presently ties up much of my time) will be an eye-feast rather than rich in novel information I presume - anything worthwhile (such as the fact that Acropternis orthonyx is, as far as I can presently tell, either monotypic or needs neotypification, as the type locality of the supposed ssp. infuscatus is right in the zone of intergradation - got 3 specimens from the type locality or its immediate surroundings at hand, and they already encompass almost the entire variation found in the species...) is slated for publication anyway. If in the BBOC or Ornitologia Neotropical, I'll see if I can get a PDF copy online for you guys. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to move further reading sections to the talk pages, to remove the useless bytes from the mainspace. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the Buteoninae navbox and articles

The taxonomy listing in the Template:Buteoninae, the Accipitridae page, and the Buteoninae page are different; for example, the Harpy Eagle is listed as being in subfamily Harpiinae in the Accipitridae page and it is in the Subfamily Buteoninae in the Buteoninae page and the navbox. What is the correct listing? Snowman (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sparrow

There are lots of sparrows in America, and I think the sparrow page should be renamed "Old World sparrow", because it is not about the American sparrows. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The sparrows are a coherent taxon, the Passeridae. That's not true of the America sparrows which are just part of the Emerizidae - many are not even named as sparrows. Over most of the English-speaking world (including NAm), the word "sparrow" would normally be assumed to refer to House or Tree Sparrow, both Passeridae species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Jim. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with Snowman, see for example the wold bird list. Living in the South of the US, sparrow means one of the many species of Emerizidae with sparrow in the name that can be found around here. It very much does not mean the old world sparrows. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Jim, though it is worth noting that most of the American sparrows may be a coherent group (a subfamily, one of two) rather than just a large number of not particularly close birds; and that not all Passerids are called sparrows, many being "finches" or "petronias". If Sparrow is misnamed, Old World sparrow is nothing of an improvement, and Passeridae would be the best name. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. Not all ducks are called ducks, many being "teals", "shovelers", "polchards" and "eiders", yet they are all undeniably ducks. Kukaburras are kingfishers and yellowhammers are buntings and Chiffchaffs are warblers even if the family name isn't in the common name. Petronias have always been a type of sparrow to me, and there is a massive benefit to using common names for higher level taxa where possible as it is less scary for readers and makes them more likely to look at the page. Incidentally, based on what the average reader would expect to find when they type in sparrow, I would bet money they expected to find the common garden House Sparrow. Beyond birders and nature lovers I doubt many people are aware of any of the others. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Good points here. You are a little off in your statement "Beyond birders and nature lovers I doubt many people are aware of any of the others," as many American sparrows and other non-Passerid sparrows are quite familiar to many people— the Song Sparrow, for example. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, people with an interest in nature would probably know other sparrows. But I still think that most people when they think sparrow think Passer domesticus by which I mean they think of the little guys in parks, gardens, beer gardens, at the zoo, in the street etc etc etc (not think in binomials!)- possibly the world's most familiar wild bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you are half way to renaming the House Sparrow article to Sparrow, which would be at a tangent to the main theme of this discussion. The discussion should be about all the sparrows and not just the House Sparrow. There a lots of species of sparrows across the world. In America there is the "Field Sparrow", "White-Crowned Sparrow", and many more. I note that Summers-Smith, J. Denis (2009) called the chapter in the HBW "Family Passeridae (Old World Sparrows)"; however, I think that the wiki would use the capitalisation and format "Old World sparrow" or "Passeridae" for the name of the family page. This discussion appears to demonstrate that there is no single widely accepted common name for the family. As far as I am aware, if there is no widely used common name for the family name, then this project would default to the scientific name. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, no. I certainly would not advocate moving House Sparrow to Sparrow, as you suggest, I am suggesting that a majority (possibly slim) of people looking for sparrow would expect to find the species. However the species has an acceptable article name and it should remain there. Moreover I disagree that there is no widely used common name for the family name, as you assert, I have seen sparrow or Old World sparrow used widely, Old World usually used in an Neartic/Neotropical context to distinguish it from NA sparrows (or in the HBW as you observe). That said, I see no harm in allowing sparrow (family) to remain as is as long as the main other two uses (the species and the north american group) are clearly linked to early on for people wanting those. And there is certainly no reason to default to Passeridae when sparrow or Old World Sparrow can be used. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I quite disagree with you Sabine. When someone in the US refers to a "flock of sparrows" they are certainly referring to Savannah's/Songs/White-crowned/House etc. The article setup right now that directs "sparrow" to Passeridae is quite confusing for uninitiated Americans. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That use of "flock of sparrows" in the USA would be very good reason why the Passeridae article should not be called Sparrow. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that in-the-round the explanations for a page move are better than those for keeping the sparrow page name as it is. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

South Georgia Pintail

Would anybody mind if I merged this page on a subspecies with the main species article, Yellow-billed Pintail? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Going on what is said on those two pages the merge seems OK to me. If there are or were alternative classifications with them as separate species, then this merge might have been controversial. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No, nobody considers the South Georgia Pintail a separate species today. It is pretty interesting, and it could have its own page, but I'd prefer to consolidate the two articles. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
My preference would be to keep the pages separate, as the SGP is a distinct and isolated taxon which is presumably diverging from YBP ecologically and genetically. My main concern is that in a merged article, information about either could become blurred, and also that public perception of the SGP as a distinct entity is negated. As far as possible, I think that distinct (and distinctive) ultrataxa should have their own pages. My experience of public perception of birds is that, for many people, what matters is the species label; subspecies don't really count. Maias (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. To clarify the above: the current YBP article is the species article; I have no problem with info regarding the SGP being incorporated. I just think that the SGP article should remain as a subspecies article. Maias (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
With this information about the subspecies each having a well known identity, I would tend to agree (60:40) with User Maias' views. A parallel would be the Panama Amazon (subspecies) as a supporting page for the Yellow-crowned Amazon (species) page. For similar reasons, I think that the African Grey Parrot species page should have two supporting pages to cover the two subspecies separately. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really like these ideas. The South Georgia Pintail is less distinct then hundreds of other subspecies—if I applied your rule to sparrows, there would be a rather unmanageable over fifty rather than twenty-seven articles for Passer. There only is so much one can do with most subspecies articles. In the case of the Yellow-billed Pintail, a lot is known about the breeding of the South Georgia subspecies and a lot about other aspects of the mainland ssp's behaviour: knowledge of them is quite intertwined. If I can merge these I'll be able to get something good out of the pintail articles. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
For me developing a species page is not dependant on deleting the content of a supporting subspecies page. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree. Links have to be made, and it will be a bit awkward trying to seriously improve a species article with the subspecies article in the way like that. The South Georgia Pintail is scarcely different from the nominate race: it differs as much as North American House Sparrows do from European ones. However, it is a duck and is found in the Antarctic. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The notability of the South Georgia Pintail lies in it being one only three non-seabirds found in the area. Whether that justifies a separate article I don't know, but I lean towards merging. There is nothing wrong with a suitable subspecies article, but most subspecies don't warrant it. I must say I find the article less offensive than the population level article split Pukeko which I was unable to convince the Kiwis was forking. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Snowman here. I completely fail to understand why retaining a subspecies page should affect the improvement of the species page by somehow being "in the way". May I suggest that the species page be improved anyway before assessing whether the subspecies page is having a malign effect on it? Even though SGP is currently a stub-class article, there seems to be enough subspecific information around to improve it as well. Improve both - win-win. Maias (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it will have to be somebody else doing the improving. As I've noted, I thought it would be good to merge since knowledge of the three ssp is intertwined. Since there is no consensus for merging the pages I'll stop working on them, as I don't like dealing with messes like this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

With no consensus to merge, I have removed the merge tags and expanded the SGP article. Maias (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems fine. I'd still prefer to merge the pages, but I'm not so opposed to separate article now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
One thing else that annoys me is that you changed a perfectly fine reference style and added very inconsistent and badly typed footnotes. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Brant Goose and Black brant

Re: Brant Goose and Black brant – I stumbled upon page merge banners on these pages:

I put up the banners. The main reason I think the pages should be merged is that the Black Brant is a part of a cline. Clearly, I am a mergist on Wikipedia. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (55)

male Masked Trogon (not Black-tailed, despite what the person who took the photo named it). Assuming the Exif data is right, this and the following photo are taken along Manu Road, Peru. • Rabo³ • 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Masked Trogon uploaded to commons as File:Trogon personatus -Peru -male-8.jpg without implying corroboration. It would have been easier if the front was seen; nevertheless, the view of its back is informative. I have shown another photograph in the infobox on the species page to show its front. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a book that covers everything in the area, but I'm gonna go with Yellow-breasted Flatbill. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that the birds for identification have broad and flat bills. I think I would agree with the genus. I do not think it is a Rhynchocyclus, but I do not know what else has flatbills. I am not saying that you are wrong, but the "Yellow-olive Flycatcher" (Tolmomyias sulphurescens) is similar, and the bird for identification does appear to have an olive (brownish) colour head. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Yellow-olive Flycatchers are similar, but all the subspecies have the white supraloral line (white patch in front of the eye, oddly missing in our photo?) and two-tone bills, (dark above, pale below). The birds in the photos do not match this. Moreover the Yellow-breasted Flatbill has a uniformity between the breast, belly throat and head that these unidentified birds have and the subspecies of the Yellow-olive Flycatcher lacks. I still think that is what it is, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If these two birds are the same species, then the two-tone bill colour may be a red-herring. I can not gauge the variation of all the varieties, subspecies, differences between males and females (if any), and the appearances of juveniles, so I can not tell what the species for identification is at the present time. Perhaps one interpretation of the image I have linked to WikiAves is that the Yellow-olive Flycatcher is sexually dimorphic, and another interpretation is that one of the birds is a juvenile - I do not have any books about these sort of birds: the bird on the left is larger and has a two-tone beak and a pale area in front of the eye, but the one on the right is more similar to both of the birds for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The eye-ring on the bird on the right is incomplete, this suggests juvenile (sexes the same in this species). HBW says nothing about the variation of the bill (although the Yellow-breasted Flatbill does vary apparently). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
If the beak colour is a reliable indicator, I would upload it as a "Yellow-breasted Flatbill". Awaiting more opinions. Snowman (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a pair of Cinnamon Flycatchers post Photoshop. For future reference, the flatbills, especially Rhynchocyclus and Tolmomyias, have quite distinct broad-based bills from below (hence their English name). • Rabo³ • 00:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thought I might have gotten that one wrong. I'd ask how I didn't get the right one, but in my defence there are 400 of the little bleeders and I missed that one. Still, this wouldn't be birds for ID if I didn't make a moderate fool of myself every now and then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Cinnamon Flycatchers uploaded to File:Pyrrhomyias cinnamomeus -Peru -two-8.jpg on commons. I do not usually look to see if there is evidence of Photoshop apart from obvious visual effects, but on checking the file reads; "Photoshop 3.0". Are there any Photoshop changes that need to be reversed? Other pictures of this species are not so yellow. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave the matter of trying to correct the colours to someone else, but yes, it's far too yellow. • Rabo³ • 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hue, saturation, and lightness reduced and new slightly less yellow image uploaded over the top. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Red-tailed Hawk, Buteo jamaicensis calurus (subspecies told by range, dark throat, and some barred look to belly band), immature (light eye, white rather than buffy underparts might be a clue but I'm not sure). Quite a shot. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Buteo jamaicensis -California, USA-.jpg without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Some kind of lark; Lesser Short-toed Lark apparently common species but will need to confirm. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup LSTL it is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Calandrella rufescens -Canary Islands -Spain-8.jpg on commons. The wiki has an painting of this species. This is the first photograph of this species on the wiki and now shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Greater Flamingo. • Rabo³ • 20:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Greater Flamingo uploaded to File:Phoenicopterus roseus -Kobe Oji Zoo -Japan-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any sources on Theristicus, and our material is getting me confused. This picture and the one at Buff-necked Ibis (Theristicus caudatus) were labeled on Flickr as Buff-necked Ibis, but the wing coloration looks very different. Both were labeled on Flickr as from Torres del Paine National Park in Chile, but the article on this species says it's found in eastern South America. Also, it's not mentioned in List of birds of Chile. However, we say the Black-faced Ibis (Theristicus melanopis) is common in Chile. Google finds sites that lump these two species, which may account for people saying that caudatus occurs in Chile, but which picture goes with which species? Can somebody straighten this out? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I took both of the Ibis photos mentioned here. I am not certain of the identification. I got it from the book "Torres del Paine: Fauna - Flora and Mountains" by Gladys Garay Nancul and Oscar Guineo Nenen, resident biologists at the national park. For Theristicus, it describes only caudatus, saying it is distributed throughout Chile and that it is a regular visitor (presumably to the park) from August to April. Miguel.v (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information—it's good to get something definite like this! I'm getting the feeling that the authors of your book followed a taxonomy that lumped these two and the 'pedia follows one that splits them. However, it would be good to understand why they look different (to me). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The photo shows a Black-faced Ibis. Reasons are now in the respective articles. • Rabo³ • 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed images from various language wikis. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Black-faced Ibis. I've checked all photos for this genus on commons and requested rename where needed (careful; one Black-faced taken in a british zoo fooled me initially, as it oddly shows a very contrasting white wing unlike anything you'll ever see in the wild). Several of the photos where I've requested a rename are featured on other wikis under the wrong species, but I haven't dealt with that (only commons and wiki.en). • Rabo³ • 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Black-faced Ibis renamed to File:Theristicus melanopis -Torres del Paine National Park-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Female Brambling. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Fringilla montifringilla -Poland -female-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Delichon

It has been suggested to me that Delichon should be moved to an English name. House martin was the first suggestion, but I pointed out that that is a common alternative name for Common House Martin to which it redirects, and to give the genus this name would be a recipe for confusion. House martin (genus) is the current suggestion. Personally I much prefer Delichon, but I'd welcome comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of the wiki guidelines without stating my preference: As far as I see it, the name of the genus is "house martin" and the common alternative name of the species is "House Martin". A parallel here is "Thick-billed Parrot" for the species and "thick-billed parrot" for the genus Rhynchopsitta. So why not use "House martin" and "House Martin" (note capitalizations) for the names of the genus and species pages respectively? A dab page might be helpful with signpost banners at the tops of the articles wikilinking to the dab page. I think that this would be consistent with the general wiki guidelines and WP Bird guidelines on using common names for bird pages. Without stating my preference I would follow the wiki guidelines and use "House martin" and "House Martin" for page names of the genus and species pages respectively on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 1an9:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur with snowman.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
We used to do that for Barn Owl and Barn owl (species and family respectively). Not sure why it was changed (I have vague recollections of someone complaining it was confusing, but can't find the conversation). I think leaving it where it is or moving it as suggested could both work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The format "Thick-billed parrot (genus)" is not needed on the parrot page. "House martin (genus)" is not so easy to link in an article than "House martin" or "house martin", but it might be help for the been known house martins. Snowman (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments requested for proposed guideline for sensitive wildlife locations

I've proposed a guideline for excluding details of certain sensitive wildlife locations from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:sensitive wildlife locations. This could be relevant to some birds: in particularly nesting sites of rare species vulnerable to egg collecting or disturbance by birdwatchers, or raptors vulnerable to illegal persecution by gamekeepers. All comments on the proposal are welcomed.Jimi 66 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I guess that sites can not be protected, if few people know where the they are. I doubt that this proposed guideline will do what is intended, because I doubt that this will stop miscreants. Everything on the wiki has to be sourced and so there should be no original information on the wiki. At first inspection this proposed guideline does not sit well with "The wiki is not censored". Will someone else come up with a reason for another wiki guideline saying that we should not write anything to do with animal hunting, shooting, or illegally taking creatures from the wild? Snowman (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. I think these comments should go at Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Which side of the discussion are you agreeing with? Snowman (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, with you, of course. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Uria/Murre and Guillemot have different entries. Should be merged?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillemot

Both pages state that all three words are synonyms referring to the same species. Should these pages be merged together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folecr (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No to merge. Guillemot should either be a dab page or be where the genus page for the true guillemots sits. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the current situation. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't either, now that I've debritannicentricified them, except that I don't think Guillemot needs to list extinct species. Those can be left for articles on real clades. Shortening Guillemot makes it closer to a dab. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Golden White-eye at FAC

Feel free to comment here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (54)

A Batrachostomus species, maybe Hodgson's Frogmouth? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a Tawny Frogmouth - there are other identified shots here also at Henry Doorly Zoo. Melburnian (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Podargus strigoides -Henry Doorly Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If on the European side, probably domesticus, if on the Asian side, probably bibilicus. Identification not easy from image. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What I meant by the probablies is that a lot of birds cross the Bosporus, so I wouldn't really try to pin a subspecies on it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There are two other images of it in the flickr photo-steam, which might help. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
542 and 543 both House Sparrows. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have made it clearer, that I am wondering if it is possible to identify the subspecies, not the species. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
domesticus, the nominate ssp. It is the only one within a 2000 mile radius of Moscow or in anywhere northerly. If the pic was taken somewhere else, I don't know. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I would find a "List of Sparrows" very useful to assist in identifying sparrows from unlabelled photographs from all over the world. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Not that easy: we only have images for a few; and I don't want to do anything genus-wide until I've finished almost every article. I expect the Passer article will be really long and will incorporate a sort of list. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
"Petrol"? Maybe it's an Oilbird (first silly joke of 2010) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Flesh-footed Shearwater Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Rename under way to File:Puffinus carneipes -New Zealand -flying-8b.jpg without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, tough one. They're scaup, as the caption says, male in front and female in back, but Greater Scaup versus Lesser Scaup is a classic ID challenge. I'm saying Greater because of the backward slope of the top of the head and the relatively big bill, but I'm not familiar with this species and won't argue with anyone who says I'm wrong. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a tough one; it does indeed look like Greater Scaups, but some marks are obscured. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Unequivocally not a tough one. There is no legitimate question as to the ID of these birds: they are textbook Greater Scuap. Scaup, when seen well, are not nearly as hard to tell apart any many would have you believe. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree Greater Scaup. The Male's sides aren't the pure white you would expect for a January adult, so I think that he is a first winter male. Moult to full adult plumage mainly complete by Feb to April Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Aythya marila -New Jersey -USA -male and female-8.jpg without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the African barbets, possibly d'Arnauld's. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Range map

Re File:Cassowary Range.png. Does anyone know what the percentages are on this map? The uploader on commons does not appear to be a regular contributor now. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The percentages are probably reporting rates from surveys, perhaps from the Atlas of Australian Birds database or from some Queensland environment agency database. To be sure of the source you may need to contact the uploader. Maias (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Rates of what? Snowman (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sightings per unit survey effort per grid box, I guess. But it's not from the Atlas of Australian Birds - 1984 or 2002 eds.; they use a finer grid. Some state government (Queensland Museum?) pub? Vaguely recall seeing something like it somewhere. It would be better to make a new map that included the New Guinea distribution.--Gergyl (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the Aus distribution only, there are excellent maps of essential habitat in this document. Maias (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a range map that included New Guinea would be more suitable on the Southern Cassowary page. Snowman (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Coates' The Birds of Papua New Guinea (1985) has a map of the PNG distribution. However, I am not sure where you might find a map, both current and accurate, of the species' distribution in western NG. Maias (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The most current map would probably be the HBW, even that dates from 1992. Although this book is more recent and has range information. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kaka the cockatoo

Kaka is the name of the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo that Konrad Lorenz owned. He describes its behaviour, misbehaviour, and some of its adventures in his book King Solomon's Ring. I am considering starting a referenced short article about Kaka. Would anyone be likely to support keeping the page, if it had an AfD. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would almost certainly opt to keep such a page, though I personally have no interest in articles on individual animals. I don't really think you'll be able to make much of such an article with just Er redete. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Was Kaka notable for anything other than being Lorenz' bird? Are there other references, for example, which detail the bird's importance to Lorenz's research, or something like that? If not, I'm not sure it would pass the WP:N test. If Joe Public can't write an article about his dog, why should we have an article about Konrad's bird (an AfD deleter would probably say something along those lines...)? MeegsC | Talk 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Rather than writing a separate article, why not improve the rather poor article on Lorenz's book, which currently reads like a cross between the publisher's blurb and a gushing review in a woman's magazine? A subsection could be devoted to Kaka (even linked to from the Kaka dab page) which would be safe from AFD and would improve the article as it stands. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I don't feel I can improve Er redete 's article now, but I can give it another round of work after you do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think articles on individual animals would get inspected by people looking for articles to delete. It might be better to expand the article on the book. Kaka was a very tame cockatoo that Lorenz bought as a pet and he described some of her or his behaviour, and not every Joe Public has got a Nobel prize in behaviour/psychology. I think it also would be worthwhile writing in more details about Lorenz's Jackdaws. I wonder how his observations compare to more modern observations. Snowman (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, but his studies of greylags are still quite important in our knowledge of that species. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New template for Pelecaniformes

Template:Pelecaniformes is expanded and replaces the original order navbox and five family navboxes. Comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aww, dont know if I would have done that one, especially as pelicans may be split off and joined with shoebill and storks, but luckily there aren't too many species so wouldn't require much fiddling with templates. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There are no classification changes from the previous template; however, I have added "traditional listing" to the heading of the new template. Awaiting suggestions. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (56)

Giant Cowbird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I added the comment in the summary under the photo quite some time ago and stand by it. Not a Giant Cowbird, but Belize is outside the area I know well and I'll have to check a field guide to be sure something beyond the suggested Melodious Blackbird hasn't slipped my mind, i.e. if there are any other relatively narrow-billed, dark-eyed glossy blackish Icterids there. • Rabo³ • 19:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I checked Howell and Webb, and Melodious Blackbird is the only possibility. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The slightly blurred image seems to show a difficult-to-identify view. Can this file be renamed to species level or genus level? Snowman (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
still haven't checked a guide, but with the comment by JerryFriedman I would certainly argue for renaming it to the exact species, Melodious Blackbird (Dives dives). • Rabo³ • 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Definitely Melodious Blackbird. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Rename of Melodious Blackbird under way to File:Dives dives -Belize-4.jpg on commons without implying corroberation. It is the only photograph of this species on commons or the en wiki. Is it good enough to shown on the species page? Snowman (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes, it's much better than nothing. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Image has been renamed and I have shown it (with new name) in the infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the Violet-backed Sunbirds, I'd go for Western Violet-backed Sunbird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree on violet-backed, though starling. Angle of photo is a bit misleading. • Rabo³ • 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Violet-backed Starling uploaded to File:Cinnyricinclus leucogaster -Toledo Zoo -USA-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Great White Egret Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ardea alba -Palo Verde National Park, Costa Rica-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to identify it as a m or f and is it in breeding plumage? Snowman (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Egrets have no difference between the sexes. Breeding birds have a dark bill, so this is non-breeding as the date would indicate anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional information added to image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Beautiful Fruit-dove Ptilinopus pulchellus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ptilinopus pulchellus -Artis Zoo, Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct. • Rabo³ • 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The link goes to the wrong place. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. External link fixed. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggested identification is correct, though the supposed male Purple Honeycreeper in the same photostream is a Red-legged. • Rabo³ • 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Purple Honeycreeper uploaded to File:Cyanerpes caeruleus -Diergaarde Blijdorp -female-8a.jpg on commons. Two images uploaded from the flickr photo stream. These are the first images of the female on the wiki and one shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Correct. • Rabo³ • 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It's an adult not quite in full breeding plumage (white spots on head and neck, again what wiould be expected in March Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional information added to image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Lesser. • Rabo³ • 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Male Lesser Bird-of-paradise uploaded to File:Paradisaea minor -Jurong Bird Park -male-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's an adult female, young females have some dark barring above and below
It's a juvenile female. Some books give somewhat misleading descriptions of its plumage, and there are variations depending on the exact subspecies, but in this case it can be recognized by the eyes, bill and wing-coverts. • Rabo³ • 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. File of Barred Antshrike updated on commons, and image shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirm Little Pied Flycatcher. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Already on commons at File:Ficedula westermanni 1.jpg. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (57)

Some kind of African weaver. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Some kind of Fody, apparently the zoo in question has Red Fodies. I don't have any books that can confirm that ID, but it seems to be the only Fody held in Europe [10] Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Red Fody. • Rabo³ • 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Madagascar Fody uploaded to File:Foudia madagascariensis -Burgers Zoo, Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
definitely a male New World "cardinal-grosbeak" of the genus Cyanocompsa. Large bill of bird in question eliminates Blue Bunting. Given the desert habitat enclosure it was in, probably Ultramarine Grosbeak, as Blue-black Grosbeak inhabits moist environments. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ultramarine Grosbeak. Unfortunately habitat is far from reliable for separating Ultramarine and Blue-black (even in the wild), but bill is. • Rabo³ • 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ultramarine Grosbeak uploaded to File:Cyanocompsa brissonii -Burgers Zoo, Netherlands -male-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Sturnia pagodarum -Artis Zoo, Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
A myna. Possibly Crested Myna. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree on Crested M. • Rabo³ • 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Crested Myna uploaded to File:Acridotheres cristatellus -Artis Zoo, Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Definitely a curassow of the genus Crax. Probably a female. I don't know the species. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Female Bare-faced. • Rabo³ • 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Bare-faced Curassow uploaded to File:Crax fasciolata -Artis Zoo, Netherlands -female-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. • Rabo³ • 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Black Kite uploaded to File:Milvus migrans govinda -India -perching-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Indicated identification is correct. • Rabo³ • 07:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The wiki says there are three types of Rockhopper penguin. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, had forgotten (there goes my reputedly photographic memory). This is moseleyi. Best looking "hopper" IMO. • Rabo³ • 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Northern Rockhopper Penguin uploaded to File:Eudyptes moseleyi -Zoologischer Garten Berlin, Germany-8a.jpg on commons, and shown in infobox on species page - the first image of its species on the wiki. Changes made without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Young feral pigeon. • Rabo³ • 07:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Young feral pigeon -perching in a space between bricks -England-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Indicated identification is correct, • Rabo³ • 07:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Chestnut-breasted Coronet uploaded to File:Boissonneaua matthewsii -Machu Picchu, Peru-8.jpg on commons and shown in infobox on species page - it looks like the previous image was distorted by flash photography. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It sure looks like our pictures of Crested Wood-partridges, and since the genus is monotypic, I feel sure there's nothing else similar to this striking bird. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirm; unmistakeable. Maias (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Rollulus rouloul -Artis Zoo -Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (58)

Not a Prairie but a Palm Warbler. Non-breeding bird, brown or western race. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Palm Warbler uploaded to File:Dendroica palmarum -Florida, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirm. It is a male, and has a developing casque but not a full one, so it is not fully grown yet. Nice shot. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like some of its wing feathers are damaged or clipped. How long are the wing feathers supposed to be? Snowman (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
They look more damaged that cut. The damage is not consistent; some of the flight feathers are rounded normally and some are not, but there is no clean line like you'd see if they were cut. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Gadwalls. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup. MeegsC | Talk 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Things I know how to photograph well when they're in front of me, but it doesn't mean I know what I'm looking at! - Jmabel | Talk 20:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Red-fan Parrot File:Deroptyus_accipitrinus-20090208.jpg -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I saw the partly reddish feathers on its neck, but I missed the reddish feather with a sharply demarcated bluish tip in the lower left corner of the picture. Rename under way to File:Deroptyus accipitrinus -captive -upper body-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, male Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
But the African Stonechat (Saxicola torquatus) would be unusual in Portugal. The European Stonechat (Saxicola rubicola) would be less surprising. However, there are many subspecies and I do not know what it is. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Identified by commons user probably without seeing the listing here. European Stonechat now at File:Saxicola rubicola-Portugal -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is linked to a page full of photos of people, etc. MeegsC | Talk 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoops; wrong link. Now fixed. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Oriental Pied Hornbill. I think it is a young female, based on the squared off (not pointed) casque and the amount of black on the bill. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anthracoceros albirostris -Pangkor Island, Malaysia-8.jpg on commons. Awaiting more certain confirmation of it being a young female. Note: Picasa Web Albums have some creative commons images, but they have to be uploaded manually at the present time until commons semi-automated upload software is ready. A commons user is working writing a script. I plan to post more details on the main page when the software is ready. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way of searching for creative commons compliant images the way you can in Flickr? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Click "Show options" and then select from the list. It permits searching for creative commons that allow modification or allow commercial use, but not both. I think that you will get a shorter list by ticking the commercial use, then reject any that do not allow modification by inspection. On commons tag images uploaded from Picasa Web Albums with {{Picasareview}} and a bot will to confirm license. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Avian male genitals

Do we have an article on the subject, or does anybody here have enough resources on bird anatomy to create a page on the subject? It sure seems we need one, given that they are of independent origin from the mammalian penis and squamate hemipenis (these seem to be the only articles on the subject). This page would be of especial use for waterfowl pages, since ducks have rather interesting reproductive organs. (one major study here). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have an article on avian genitals in general, rather than just specifically the male ones. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The female ones should be at cloaca, and bird cloacas are not of independent origin from the others. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like it would be useful to have an article on Bird reproduction, which currently redirects to Bird#Breeding. A possible future collaboration? Maias (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the article would need to be called "Reproductive systems in birds". The anatomy would include ovary, testis, ducts, and the scope could include embryology, comparative anatomy, gametes, chromosomes, and hormones. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Would a detailed description of the anatomy, physiology, and behaviour of ducks (as outlined in the paper that is linked above) be relevant to any other family or order of birds? Perhaps a detailed account of what is said in this paper is best placed on the relevant duck genus or waterfowl page (or sub-page) as is indicated above. I think that a page about the general aspects of avian reproductive systems is needed, and there may be potential for specific mention in ducks on a separate duck related page. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think a brief mention is merited at least. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
While this does belong at Anseriformes articles, a long mention should be made, since the reproduction of waterfowl is particularly interesting.
And an article specifically on the subject in the headline would be good: as a counterpart to hemipenis, and something explanatory to be linked from articles such as Muscovy Duck. If anybody here would mind making one. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists of birds by colour

Hello. Following a CFD discussion here, the categories Black and white birds and Birds with red bill or beak have been deleted. As someone indicated in the discussion that these categories would be of interest to bird watchers as lists, I've made started the two list articles in my userspace: 1, 2. Would anyone find such lists useful or worthy of keeping and maintaining? Feel free to add to the lists if you think they make sense. If not, I'll just delete the lists after a while if nobody shows interest. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't readily see how these could be useful categories or lists. Some of the information isn't even correct! The Black Oystercatcher, for example, has an orange rather than red bill. MeegsC | Talk 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I concur. These lists would be a great deal of work, somewhat subjective, for little gain. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that they would be useful for bird watchers, who can narrow down identification problems by looking at regional lists. It might be of interest to artists or people interested in colour themes. Snowman (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot of people, birders like myself or not, will make more of shape. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty, then. Thanks for your comments, everyone. Jafeluv (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_48&oldid=1066176343"