Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

Apropos of nothing

Not really relevant, but I finally got my Kokako today! Too far away to get a picture, but I did get some nice morepork and kaka piccies. I'll get on uploading them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration of the....

Our collaboration of the month has been tagged as inactive, on account of us not having done anything with it since October. This is rather a shame as it has, in the past, helped us quickly improve articles, and gained us a number of FAs. Looking back at past collaborations, they tended to be more successful when aimed at species rather than higher level taxa. Would anyone be interested in trying to kick start it again? Perhaps on a rolling two monthly colab, rather than just one month? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the tagging - I guess there is a natural tendency for us all so far to work on species-level articles as some of the best-defined to get to FA-level (higher taxa means a degree of pruning of more specific information, and sometimes the scope is tricky). It would be good to see collaborations as some counterpoint to that to push pages like Passerine, for instance, or Bird migration and plumage or other more general pages to GA/FA level. However, I do concede that a collaboration actually focussing on editors want and pushing more articles toward GA/FA (even if they are just more species taxa) is better than none at all. Incidentally, we have a bunch of B-class past nominations - Secretarybird, New World vulture, Puffin, and Bird migration - anyone want to suggest which might be closest to a GA nomination at least, and maybe with a bit of work a few of these can be bumped across that line at least? Ultimately WRT the collaboration, we can just start it again and see what folks vote on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Red Knot looked really good. It still needs work, but it is certain;y not far from GA. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking Puffin looked alright as well, and Secretarybird not far behind. Okay then....if everyone can cast a last minute eye over those three articles, maybe slinging them up at GAN. Meanwhile, we can kick start collaboration and see what comes up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have yet more ideas for future collaborations (poor articles most of us could work on: Darwin's finches, Mallard, Canada Goose…). Let's get this started! —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like we could probably manage to kick start this again. I'll remove the tag and nominate an article. Come nominate and vote! Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of systemic bias - we have no Galliformes, Anseriformes, Piciformes nor Coraciiformes among the FAs....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Northern Pintail falls into Anseriformes... MeegsC | Talk 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
D'oh! Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to rectify that by working on some more waterfowl, waterfowl being the animals I have the greatest interest in. However, I'm rather occupied working on all the Passer articles. Perhaps Crested Shelduck could be promoted; I've started adding more historical background, and a bit of copyediting is most of what it needs. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reckon Red Knot and Puffin are not far off GA - if everyone has a look and se if there are any glaring omissions that would be great. I have buffed the leads of both and tinkered with the refs. Jim is back from holidays, and he's done alot of work on both so I figured he'd be in a good position to decide when to take the plunge. Casliber (talk · contribs)

Blaaah, I forgot about Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo, which I have just buffed and nominated. Great Tit is right to go for GA (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure Great Tit is quite ready to go yet; there are still several sections (habitat and range, for example) that should be expanded first. MeegsC | Talk 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bananaquit

User:Famedalupi has just split off Bananaquit into a bunch of articles, on the basis of the listing of this as a proposed split at the IOC. I noted that this is not enough to split the species on Wikipedia, and re-merged the pages, also making a lot other changes, especially minor edits; and removing almost certain copyvio by Famedalupi (a really long quote from the important paper. Famedalupi then simply undid my edits. I'll merge the pages again and undo his edits, but I'd like this to be properly resolved. (Famedalupi has created other species pages on similarly shaky basis, see his userpage). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I protected the pages, we do not need edit warring. Discuss the issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, someone might consider removing the "red link" photo in the Coereba bartholemica taxobox. The Bahamas Bananaquit photo is going the same way shortly. • Rabo³ • 07:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Pages with binomial names as headings should be moved to the common name or changed to a redirect to the relevant page with a common name as the headings. Snowman (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Not as long as they are protected, and afterwards only if the page is maintained. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If kept, shouldn't be changed to Lesser Antillean Bananaquit (see talk on bananaquit). A somewhat related question: What to do about the comment by Famedalupi here? Not the content of the comment (even if I consider it questionable), but rather that it is placed on the talk of a redirect page. Is a copy and paste move of a comment by another person ok in that case? • Rabo³ • 09:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the page should be a redirect to Bananaquit, so I have changed the page into a redirect. There may be a correct way of merging talk pages and page histories, so I have left the comment on the redirect temporarily. The comment probably should not remain on the redirect, and should be moved to Bananaquit. Any thoughts on merging talk pages? Will a cut and paste merge suffice? Snowman (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: after a bit of thought, I have done a cut and paste merge on the two talk pages, with wikilinks in the edit summaries as recommended, so that the edit history can be traced. Snowman (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made another comment on Talk:Bananaquit, suggesting a particular revision be restored. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Deserta's Petrel will need to be fixed, as the info is based on an assumption of splitting. My understanding of the situation is that the IOC is contemplating it, but no split has occurred. speednat (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
But these cases have to be judged individually. I'm still somewhat on the fence when it comes to the petrels (as I am with some recent storm-petrel splits), but the case for the Ninox is fairly good, and even stronger in the peacock-pheasant, where one only can wonder why the Hainan taxon ever ended up as a subspecies of the Grey (plumage, bare parts colours, morphometrics and genetics all point to it being a mismatch). There is nothing on our front page that suggests we always have to follow any single authority when it comes to taxonomy. IMO, the question isn't if some authority has recommended a split (or merge), but rather if there is strong published evidence supporting it. • Rabo³ • 07:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we should split species because of mere papers (primary sources). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC
"Mere papers" ?! That's what real science is based on. Not field guides, world checklists or other popular science. If using that strict interpretation of primary sources (paper = prim. source), you'll also find that the vast majority of wiki Featured Articles on scientific subjects include numerous prim. sources without direct support by secondary sources simply because: 1) Popular scientific sources don't cover things in detail and many things not at all. 2) Popular scientific sources rarely give any hard data, making it impossible to judge how accurate their claim is (indirectly, I suspect this is what went wrong in bananaquit where a suggestion by a world checklist was followed without thoroughly checking the paper it was based on). In other words, it is potentially far more problematic to follow a mere popular science source. But really, this is about common sense: Why should we be forced to follow some checklist if we are aware of hard scientific data proving it wrong? I certainly would find that inexcusable, and would find in difficult to justify my participation in any project where I was forced to disregard scient. papers unless I could find some pop. source supporting it. • Rabo³ • 03:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rabo 100% on papers. Journal articles are not primary sources. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree 75%. WP:PRIMARY states clearly that scientific papers are primary sources. The reason we're supposed to avoid them is that, as everyone here knows, they contradict each other all over the place, and they can pass peer review despite obvious problem (which is why we're not following Hackett et al., not that I understand the problems). We're not supposed to "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source"; instead, the policy is to wait for review articles, encyclopedias, books, and yes, checklists to do that. However, the secondary sources disagree, so we have to make those claims if we're going to have any kind of taxonomic scheme. I'm happy for the people here whose judgement and knowledge I trust to combine pieces of proposed classification schemes, including those that have been published only in journal articles. And I think it's great if everyone with that kind of knowledge and judgement gets involved in the decisions. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Please excuse me for this rather crude outburst, but GODFUCKINGDAMMITSOFUCKINGMUCH! Journal articles did not use to be explicitly stated as primary sources, and I still do not consider them as such, but yes, the policy has apparently been changed recently. I am far to tired to work out who made these changes tonight, but be damn sure I'm going to go over there and kick some fucking arse later. I am utterly sick of sweeping policy changes being made in this way. There are only so many policy pages I can keep on my watchlist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Utter nonsense. Primary source is the lab notebook with the observations. The article is a secondary source, the review article the tertiary. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
To make up for upsetting you, I'll mention this edit and this one, from last month. Regardless of the wording of the policy, my feeling is that we should rely mostly on real consensus where it can be found, and use journal articles where we have to and people's good judgement says they're likely to be widely accepted. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Papers about research projects in journals are primary sources. As far as I am aware lab notes should also be viewed as primary sources, because they are very close to the events. Some wikiprojects have taken a strict approach on guidelines and have not used primary sources for a long time - these are projects where the accuracy of facts is vitally important (be partially reassured by the wikilink to the disclaimer page at the bottom of every article). Will this project's approach to primary sources remain unchanged in the light of amended general wiki guidelines? I suspect that there are no general "obsoletes" or "nevers" here. I am not entirely sure of the use of an essay on the wiki, who writes them or if they can have joint authors, but it might be worth (collectively) writing an essay on the use of ornithology primary sources on the wiki as an experiment on listening, consensus, negotiation, and common sense, but I am not going to start it. After discussions here have reached some conclusions, it might be easier to write something in the general guidelines after discussion on the talk page there. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Some wikilawyering - a interpretation of "a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors" could be that it is a primary source only for the experiments performed (should have included - and observations made) by the author. I suspect that the much of the wording is based on experiences from the medicine project that has to deal with some editors drawing conclusions from specific case histories published in "scientific papers". Shyamal (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did this turn into such a huge discussion? That is not what I meant, above. (As for my opinion: they perhaps are somewhere in between, and it does not matter in the least). Referring specifically to species splits, I don't think we should make splits until they have been accepted either by some major checklist, or a review of some sort or two, such as a monograph on a group (and I thought my opinion was that of an extreme splitter!). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It turned into a big discussion because WP:PRIMARY has been changed in a way which could affect us quite a bit. Snowman, the problem is not one of "the accuracy of facts is vitally important", accuracy is a question we all worry about; it is about avoiding original research and synthesis. Aside from arguments about whether journals are primary sources, this is not a problem for us because we tend to use journal articles not as sources to build articles so much as supporting citations, and we already treat novel and new ideas with caution until they receive more widespread support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we followed WorldBirdNames.com which in turn follows the IOC?? speednat (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For English names we do. For actual taxonomy we, um, follow overall consensus or whatever mostly seems right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Subjects of interest for WikiProject Birds

In the scope section you note that aviculture is one of the subjects to be included in the WikiBirdProject. Yet, such a chapter is seldom present in the articles on species important from the avicultural point of view. Furthermore, articles lacking this chapter are listed as Good articles, meaning that avicultural information is not important. I suggest to correct this, and set criteria for the good article so that inclusion of the subject of aviculture is mandatory, for it is one of the major ways in which birds are of importance and interest to humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.186.222 (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here, obviously. If you see a deficiency, please be bold and do something about it! I should like to note, though, that only some birds are kept in captivity, and among those, some, such as the Chestnut Sparrow have little published information on their keeping. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
One problem we have repeatedly had with aviculture sections is that they are often unsourced, pov and original research. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Innotata and Jim are correct. No section is mandatory unless there is some information to include. Of the bird FAs and GAs we have only Rock Pigeons, Cockatoos and Australian Ringnecks are typically kept in aviculture, and all of which mention aviculture to a greater or lesser degree. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Geographical variation in behavior

Geographical variation in behavior is another important and problematic subject. Many species are incorrectly described as British birds. While they occur in Britain, the British populations are often only an odd exception to the rules generally followed by the species. For instance some are described as tame garden birds while on the continent they are shy woodland species which avoid human habitation. Some described as sedentary while in fact only part of the British population behaves in such an abnormal way, while most populations are migratory. Even in aviculture Eurasian bird species are commonly (and quite wrongly) referred to as "British birds", while in fact Britain has no monopoly on them whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.186.222 (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. "British birds" means that they occur in Britain, not that they are exclusive to the country. If there are factual errors in articles, correct them with appropriate sources. Why is migration "abnormal" - thousands of bird species worldwide are not migratory? I don't think that there is any UK species which is resident here, but migratory everywhere else it occurs. Your US spelling of "behaviour" and Israeli url suggests that you are perhaps not that familiar with western European species? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I see precisely the point that s/he's trying to make. "British birds" could indeed imply that they are unique to Britain; at the very least it conveys a sense that Britain has some greater claim to the birds than other locations. The articles are (understandably) Britain-centric, but I think they should be "cleaned up" whenever possible so that they are more factually accurate for the entire range of a species. This need not be controversial, and I see no need in getting defensive/combative in response to a respectful suggestion. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
And some of our bias undoubtedly stems from the fact that many English-language studies on European birds deal with populations in Great Britain rather than the continent. I've been reviewing the Eurasian Sparrowhawk article, for example, and — despite the fact that the species is found throughout most of Europe and Asia — almost every study referenced deals with British populations. That's a bias we have, like it or not! What's the solution? Not sure. Perhaps those of us who speak other languages need to be more proactive about finding foreign sources. Or perhaps we need to start getting in contact with (and sharing sources / information with) similar projects from other language wikipedias. And, by the way Jim, the anon IP implied the sedentary populations were the abnormal ones, not the migratory ones — though I agree with you that there are few species that are resident in the UK and migratory elsewhere.MeegsC | Talk 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
But I can't recall any articles describing a species as a "British Bird", so the whole comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding. With widespread species that occur in Britain too, I agree that often much more research is UK-based than elsewhere. With articles like Common Blackbird and Red-billed Chough you have to be selective about using the UK sources (which often repeat the same stuff) and make an effort to see what work has been done elsewhere, with the assistance of those like Shyamal who can come from a different perspective. Other than some species with restricted ranges, I can't recall any FA which doesn't give a fair global picture in terms of ssp etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a line from the Common Blackbird article: It may not immediately be clear why the name "Blackbird", first recorded in 1486, was applied to this species, but not to one of the various other common black British birds, such as the Carrion Crow, Raven, Rook or Jackdaw. I understand what you mean, but it does say "British birds"! MeegsC | Talk 15:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The context is about the English name used in Britain. The use of the term British or English birds is completely acceptable in the context of how the British name their birds, in my opinion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The alleged Brit-centricity could be remedied with It may not immediately be clear why the name "Blackbird", first recorded in 1486, was applied to this species, rather than to one of various other black birds, such as the Carrion Crow, Raven, Rook or Jackdaw, which are also common in Britain. A small (and, perhaps to some, unnecessary) change, but one that removes any hint that we think of these as "British birds". MeegsC | Talk 18:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(sigh) "British" = "occurs in Britain", not "only occurs in Britain". It's obvious why Britain is mentioned when you are talking about the derivation of the English name (incidentally, "English" means the main language spoken in England, not that it's only spoken in England - just to avoid any further charges of Anglo-centricity). I'm losing the will to live on this one, change it if you want, it must be the most important thing to do on the project. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Russet Sparrow

Russet Sparrow is approaching FAC, so any comments on its talk page would be appreciated. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (60)

Yes on subspecies, if it is at Aswan. The plumage alone is not enough to identify subspecies. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm inclined to think the crown supports a niloticus identification. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
House Sparrow uploaded to File:Passer domesticus -Aswan, Egypt -male-8b.jpg on commons with five others in the photostream. The image descriptions include the locations. The subspecies can be added if this is certain. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is certain. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
American sparrow, note. I think so, but I'm not sure sine I don't know these birds so well. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The confusion species, I mean. Do any others have the golden crown? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No, they don't. A look at Sibley confirms this as a first-winter Golden-crowned Sparrow. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Golden-crowned Sparrow uploaded to File:Zonotrichia atricapilla -USA-8.jpg on commons with the next one in the Flickr photostream. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is in Tbilsi, it must be an aberrant House Sparrow. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless any petronias look like that. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Sacred Ibis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
African Sacred Ibis shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Common Buzzard dark morph Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Buteo buteo -Butterfly and Wildlife Park, Lincolnshire-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a hawk, but rather, a falcon. Perhaps a Peregrine, but since it's a falconer's bird, it may well be a hybrid and any identification is likely conjecture. Recommend not using photo.[ Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually think this looks pretty good for Lanner Falcon of the North African ssp Falco biarmicus erlangeri. Although falconers do use confusing hybrids, I'm not clear why Natureguy thinks this is one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Adult Cape Petrel of nominate ssp D. c. capense Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The location is clear in the image description. If the appearance also confirms the subspecies, then perhaps the subspecies name can also be added? Snowman (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Steamer duck, but the species ID is really difficult. I'd go with flying, but it could be a Falklands. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
More like a Falkland, but confirmation is needed. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration of the bi-month

It is almost time to chose. Three articles have two votes each, Rufous Hornero, Resplendent Quetzal and Passerine. Please go cast the deciding votes! Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the three have three votes apiece! Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Now it is hornero or passerine. I won't do much myself, but I'll do a little for all four proposed. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now all four have a vote. If this is ever to end, next vote cliches it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone....anyone....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Corvus monedula

Can anybody reasonably confirm that these are both jackdaws, and say anything about whether the difference, esp. in beak size and shape, is due to age, sex, subspecies?

Thanks,

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please say where they were seen. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
commons:User:Jojo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
They may not be looking in exactly the some direction, so it is probably impossible to assess beak length. Snowman (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have nothing to contribute, can you please let someone more knowledgeable have a go? Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
He did contribute, observing correctly that the apparent difference in bill size is hard to accurately gauge. Not that bill size is diagnostic of anything in this species. Confirm European Jackdaw, no idea what sexes they are as the two are indistinguishable in the field according to HBW, confirm both adults. Difficult to identify subspecies, particularly not knowing where the photo was taken, photographer apparently Polish so could be spermologus or sommerringii races, although the darkness of the breast suggests sommerringii. For future reference we have regular subsections here where you can post images for ID, if you'll look at some of them you might notice that even if we are unable to identify the bird in question we make observations that can help someone else. But don't let that stop you from being rude. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Snowman with regard to probable photographic foreshortening, and with Sabine's for the rest, including the request for civility when asking for help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Note that the bright point of the reflection on their corneas is in different positions. Snowman (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just browsing Category:Famous birds...

...and I noticed that the articles contained within lack consistency in naming. Should an attempt be made to standardize the titles across the category where appropriate, per the guideline at Wikipedia:NCDAB?

eg.

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that your idea for consistent article names sounds fine. Snowman (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll move them. The names are not what they are actually called. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (61)

Both this and above Southern Giant Petrels. Second bird is adult, first is younger. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It matches other images of this species, and the only other species in its genera is yellow-headed, so I guess confirmed. I added it to the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
First image of Chestnut-capped Blackbird on the wiki. Please note putting a wikilink here helps to find this later when it is archived through "What links here". Snowman (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Adult male Spotted Towhee. ("Rufous-sided Towhee" is a pre-split name.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I think it's a first-year male based on brown tinge on head, browner tinge on back, pointed or rounded (not blunt or truncated) three outer rectrices. But unless someone confirms it, maybe the age shouldn't be mentioned. The subspecies is oregonus based on range and reduced white spotting. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to commons as File:Pipilo maculatus -Reifel Island, Vancouver, Canada -front-8.jpg. I have mentioned the subspecies without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Adult male Yellow Grosbeak. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Pheucticus chrysopeplus -Burgers Zoo, Arnhem, Netherlands-8a.jpg on commons and shown in infobox being better than the previous infobox image. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I was expecting the Europeans to be all over this one. It's not a Lesser Spotted Woodpecker? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
See the Polish wiki Dzięciołek page. Snowman (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that seems to settle it as a Lesser Spotted. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Commons uses the old name Dendrocopos minor, so I have put it in that category. Snowman (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can make amendments; nevertheless, could anyone that has listed a bird for identification please ensure that any amendments or tidy-up work pursuant to their enquiry have been completed. Reporting any amendments made with an update makes it clear that the tidy-up work has been completed or not. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare: capitalisation of unofficial names

Ok, WP:BIRD capitalizes names of birds. We do this because there has been sufficient standardization though official name lists that they should be considered proper nouns. However, based on the same rationale, alternative names should not be capitalized because they are common nouns. What do people think? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

surely it depends. Duck hawk for Peregrine Falcon probably shouldn't be. But some names not used by the IOC are nevertheless used officially (or have been) by some ornithological association, and probably can be. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought Duck hawk was an official name in the US (?) - maybe a case by case basis then :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The implication of Kim's suggestion is that once an 'official' name is adopted (for us usually the one on the IOC list) for a bird, then all other common names it has had (and may have again in the future) should be decapitalised. I am strongly against this. I think that the rationale suggesting that common bird names only become proper nouns through adoption by the IOC is faulty. There is no reason why a species should not have several common names, all proper nouns and capitalisable, as well as an 'official' name for standardised use in media such as Wikipedia, field guides, trip lists, etc. The rationale for having capitalised names (e.g. lessening ambiguity) applies to common names generally. Having a mix of capitalised and uncapitalised common names for birds would indeed be a nightmare. Maias (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Maias. Besides, in many cases (as with Duck Hawk and the AOU), alternate names have at one point been accepted by official committees. Natureguy1980 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File names and listings

Anyone can make amendments; nevertheless, could anyone that has listed a bird for identification please ensure that any amendments or tidy-up work pursuant to their enquiry have been completed. Reporting any amendments made with an update makes it clear that the tidy-up work has been completed or not. Snowman (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I sort out the categorisation of any birds which have been identified here. I would like to note that a lot of above discussions have unidentified birds, such as # 60, which has an unidentified steamer duck. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I noted that since many users are ignoring these. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If we don't know what something is we don't comment. We aren't ignoring anything, I look at most images brought up here, but I don\t have an ID book for every group/area in the world, and neither do most people. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Your note is correct, because sometimes birds listed here are not identified with certainty to species level. I would say that the majority of birds are identified eventually. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes a commons file name that is clearly nonsense or misleading needs to be renamed. It is generally clearer for subsequent viewers to update the image description on the commons file with the information that has been gleaned. See the guidelines on commons about renaming files Snowman (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't care much about what files are called, except in preferring they be a little descriptive and use the Latin (or Cyrillic) alphabet, so they can be typed easily. Do you think files with names such as "Gaviota.jpg" should be renamed?. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just done some checking - it seems that Gaviotas is Gull in Spanish. Names should not be changed just because it is the right word in the "wrong" language. However, it seems that Gaviotas is also a place-name, so having these two meanings, I think that the file name would be confusing to some and this would be a good reason for initiating a file rename on commons. Only administrators on commons can move files. I will initiate the rename of this one so that you can see the format of the request. Incidentally, commons administrators probably would not do a rename to make a name slightly better. To reduce their workload rename is for files that have bad names. Files with lower case file suffix (ie .jpg .png .ogg and so on) are preferred. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I know all of this. All that matters is : is that too unspecific a name? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ideally new files should have clear descriptive names. An existing file with name like "Gull.jpg" would not be renamed. Similarly vague but correct names in foreign languages would not be renamed. There is case for "Gaviotas" to be renamed because it may be confused with the place name Gaviotas, hence I have requested a rename for that file. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It is called "Gaviota", so there is no problem. I am fine with foreign-language names, but alphabets other than Latin are hard to type for most people, so should be preferred. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I should have wikilinked the place-name Gaviota, California. You often have to do a lot of checking to make sure that file name are appropriate or not. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
There are many file names with non-English characters including some file names in Chinese and Japanese - if they are the correct words for the image, then leave them as they are. The mediawiki software permits non-English characters in file names. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do notice what others say on talk pages? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearly Bird 631 should be renamed when identified. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It is category indexing that should only use standard alphabetical characters. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Commons:File_naming for more details. It says do not use funny characters in file names. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

*Thud* Yes, but the photographer thought of "Just one look" as a caption, so it's occurring to me that that should go in the description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The bird may have been looking down towards the ground at the pebble, but, to be more certain, I would need to lookup where the foveas are in this species. It could have been looking forward, but it reminds me of how a parrot turn might turn its head sideways when looking down. I sometimes put some activities in the file name that describe the image, such as; perching, walking, or flying, with the species name and location. There is no reason why the photographers caption should go in the image description word-for-word unless it is relevant. Sometimes photographers use an anthropological witticism in the caption, which may not be appropriate for transcribing to the image description. Actually, recently I have frequently kept most of the photographers notes in the image description (the upload software does this automatically) so it is in the file history, and then writing over it with the next edit with an image description that is more suitable for commons. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, if you think that you can characterise the birds behaviour in the image description using "just one look" then write it in. Do you know the photographer? Snowman (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I think keeping the photographer's description somewhere is a good idea. Commons is for educational media, but I don't think it has a policy that everything in the image description has to have clear educational value. So I would keep a photographer's title, witticism, etc., moving it from the filename to the description if necessary, on the basis that others might enjoy it (whether I do or not). Also, I think photographers who upload to Commons might be discouraged from doing so if they find that people are taking away parts of their contributions.
(No, I don't know the photographer of that picture.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Russet Sparrow at FAC

Russet Sparrow is now at FAC, comments here would be much appreciated. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (59)

Uploaded from Picasa Web Albums to File:Ciconia abdimii -London Zoo-8a.jpg on commons and shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Faulty link. No specific image. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The external link is working on my system, and I find the link to Picasa for Bird 590 works too. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Female Psittacula cyanocephala based on beak color. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a male in the same photograph set on Picasa, but I did not want to identify Bird 591 because of that fairly obvious male Plum-headed Parakeet. How can you be sure Bird 591 it is not a female Blossom-headed Parakeet? Snowman (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Good one, I overlooked that possibility. And there is no good way unless you can see the tip of the tail. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
... or a red patch on wing. Unfortunately the tree branch obscures part of the wing. If there was no red patch on the wing, then it would confirm a female Blossom-headed Parakeet; however, I am not sure if the image shows enough of the wing to be sure of the absence of a red patch. Incidentally, juveniles have an all-yellow beak. Because of the balance of the probabilities, I think that I might upload it as a adult female Plum-headed Parakeet, owing to the male in the Picasa photo set and the apparent absence of a red patch on the wing, and I would write a cautious image description. Snowman (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 point to differences in the collar yellowness. The identification above is supported. Shyamal (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Plum-headed Parakeet uploaded to File:Psittacula cyanocephala -Flying High Bird Habitat -Australia -female-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Adult male Great-tailed Grackle. MeegsC | Talk 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Subspecies loweryi, assuming it's in Cancun, by the way. —JerryFriedman (Talk)
Uploaded to File:Quiscalus mexicanus -Cancun, Mexico-8.jpg on commons with two others in the photostream. The image description gives its location. The subspecies can be added, if this is certain. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Tropical Mockingbird. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirm. Stunning shot. Possible FP? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for placing Hildebrandt's Starling in the infobox position. Nominated for FP. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed as Gray Crowned Crane. A good find—we have few shots of either crowned crane in the wild. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Somewhere, I'm not sure where, I have a wild shot of an adult and chick. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Balearica regulorum -Tanzania-8.jpg on commons and shown in infobox image on species page replacing the previous image. Snowman (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we have more wild GCCs than I thought, but no pictures of chicks, so if you happen on that picture....
It's the Black Crowned Crane that we have no wild pictures of. Speaking of which, File:Balearica_regulorum_(atamari).jpg is misidentified and should be BCC, B. pavonina, right? But what's it doing in Uganda (see the Commons description) or South Africa (see the Flickr page)? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Blue-crowned Motmot with broken central tail feathers, I think. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree on species. The green breast suggests that it's a South American ssp, but nominate M. m. momota should heve some rufous on the nape. The ssp found in Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago have rufous breasts. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Momotus momota -Nashville Zoo-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Surprising nobody's taken a look. I'm no expert, but isn't this a Yellow-eyed Penguin? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Megadyptes antipodes -New Zealand-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The bird bits the feathers most likely from boredom. It is not a decease because the head is unaffected. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
What sort of damage do feather mites and parasites cause? Snowman (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It can look actually the same, but in that case, the head in included. Nutrient shortages often shows as small bands in the feathers. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that some chewing lice have a preference for feathers at certain sites. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Red-lored Amazon uploaded to File:Amazona autumnalis -Belize -feather problem-8a.jpg with four others in the photo set. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (65)

Yes, it's a female (chestnut on head and nape, male has black) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Shown in infobox on species page - first photograph of the species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Added description indicating female without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
YEP, if only they were all this easy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Shown in infobox on species page - first photograph of the species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks as if it has a blue eyering, which would rule out Dull-mantled, but Chestnut-backed shouldn't have spots Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Could the apparent blue of the eyering be due to the illumination? Snowman (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
that's why I italicised above. Dull-mantled is the only one with spotting, although there should be more spots above the upper wing bar - perhaps the angle of the shot? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The photo is from Ecuador where the subspecies of the Chestnut-backed is maculifer. It has white wing-spots. Same in cassini. When all the NBII photos were uploaded to commons quite some time ago I checked them as there were many mistakes. They should be clean unless someone uploaded NBII photos since then. • Rabo³ • 07:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not doubt your comment about the wing-spots on the Ecuador subspecies. Unfortunately, I was going on what is written in the stub article. I am somewhat hesitant to add to the Chestnut-backed Antbird article without knowing much about this bird and without relevant sources of information handy. Snowman (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
nearly all the web images are taken in Costa Rica, and are therefore of the spotless ssp occidentalis. this confirms what Rabo says about the spotted ssps maculifer and cassini Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Juvenile Wrinkled Hornbill. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Aceros corrugatus -Roger Williams Park Zoo, Rhode Island, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Black-hooded Sierra Finch. • Rabo³ • 07:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Black-hooded Sierra Finch (IOC name) or Black-hooded Sierra-finch (wiki page name) uploaded to File:Phrygilus atriceps -Bolivia-8.jpg on commons and shown on wiki in infobox of species page. First image of the species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox image. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Large-footed Finch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Pezopetes capitalis -Costa Rica-8.jpg on commons, and shown in infobox on species page - first photograph of its species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FT

Nobody appears to want to push New World vultures to FT, despite its existing GA?FA score. What about a Cathartes topic? It has an FA and two GAs, so just needs the genus to GA? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that New World vulture FT seems achievable, so there is no need for the lessor target of Cathartes FT. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Only New World vulture and Cathartes need to be improved for GT, but I am among those who can't do much with the articles. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration

Passerine has been chosen as the project's current collaboration. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Delichon now at FAC, if it gets through it promotes the house martin GT to an FT. Thanks for any input or comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And joined by Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo so now there are three birds at FAC, Russet Sparrow being the third. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (64)

Looks like a female Anna's Hummingbird. Natureguy1980 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Added. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ruddy Shelduck is probably more common in the region mentioned. Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Himalayan Monal Lophophorus impejanus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Updated. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Zapata Rail Cyanolimnas cerverai endemic to one Cuban swamp Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Updated. Our only image of the rail. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
African Pygmy Goose. Unmistakable. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. Wrong licence for commons upload. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The Flickr photographer kindly changed the licence on request. uploaded to File:Nettapus auritus -Houston Zoo, USA-8a.jpg on commons, and shown on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it male if female? Snowman (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't remember how dimorphic the birds are; I think a male. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Could be a pale morph Wahlberg's Eagle, Aquila wahlbergi like the right hand bird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Himalayan Monal Lophophorus impejanus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Lophophorus impejanus -Warsaw Zoo, Poland -male-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tried to get on mainpage and failed.....

Worth keeping this somewhere and not starting from scratch I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh now I am confused - in any case, bird is a candidate for the mainpage here again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
We need to get Passenger Pigeon ready for 2014! Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Passenger Pigeon, a 1907 compilation, may be useful for that article. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

White peacock

Some help?????? Errr.... I made a article on peacocks titled: White peacock (bird). Will anyone help it grow? It currently needs a LOT of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoawoo4 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be merged with one of the peacock aricles, as there is currently little usable content, and this is just a variation. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree, just a variation, like a white Blackbird or black Grey Heron, little sourced content, merge or delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
My feelings too (merge, that is). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
After visiting the Peafowl article, I noticed that there is a extremely large gallery. Maybe it would be be a good Idea to remove allot of them. On the Eurasian coot Article the other day, A large gallery (probably smaller than the peafowl galley), got completely removed because it was over illustrating the eurasian coot. I think some of the images on the peafowl gallery will have to be deleted eventually. By the way, has anyone merged the white peafowl article yet? I noticed green peafowl and Indian peafowl were on that page, and yes so should the white peafowl. --JamesDouch (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
But hang on, The Green peafowl, and Indian peafowl are mentioned in the peafowl article, but they also have whole articles dedicated to them! what does this mean? --JamesDouch (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
They are species. The white peafowl isn't a species or even a subspecies but a colour morph. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (66)

Probably Palawan Hornbill, but it's young and I don't feel 100% certain I can exclude Oriental Pied Hornbill. The owl in the same photostream is a Philippine Eagle Owl. • Rabo³ • 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Extras: Philippine Eagle Owl uploaded to File:Bubo philippensis -captive-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Cotinga, right? Like Spangled Cotinga? (Strangely enough, the written phrase "purple chin" helped remind me.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm Jerry's ID. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cotinga cayana -Burgers Zoo, Arnhem, Netherlands -male-8a.jpg on commons and shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Adult male Western Bluebird. Much prettier than a) the pictures I've taken of this species, as b) the one in my freezer (which my boss will make a specimen out of). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Western Bluebird uploaded to File:Sialia mexicana -California, USA -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Western Bluebird uploaded to File:Sialia mexicana -USA -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Harris's Hawk. Thanks for posting some species I've seen! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Parabuteo unicinctus -Gentleshaw Wildlife Centre, Staffordshire, England-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Male Cuban Grassquit. • Rabo³ • 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Cuban Grassquit uploaded to File:Tiaris canorus -Canberra Walk In Aviary, Australia-8a.jpg on commons without implying corroboration. First image of the species on the wiki and shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the photographer's right, Purple Glossy Starling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Lamprotornis purpureus -in a zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this is a Purple Glossy. They have a huge eye, sloping forehead and large beak, like this and this. They also have a bronzy purple tail. This looks more like one of the blue-eared glossy-starlings to me... MeegsC | Talk 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Put in "Unidentified birds" category on commons. Awaiting more opinions. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Jimfbleak is right on Purple. It's just the neck-posture that is a bit misleading. Depending on angle and light, the tail of the Purple ranges from dark blue to violet-purple. There's really not any other glossy stralings that looks like this, e.g. none of the blue-eared have a clear contrast between nape and mantle and are all noticeably longer-tailed (tail-tip extending far beyond primary-tip). A photo taken 1 minute earlier also shows a Purple and according to ISIS the only Lamprotornis at Aalborg Zoo is Purple. • Rabo³ • 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not see the zoo location on flickr until now. It sometimes takes longer to do the detective work to find the location than the species identification. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Giant Wood-rail Aramides ypecaha Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Aramides ypecaha -Toronto Zoo, Canada-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed, young male Green-crowned Brilliant. MeegsC | Talk 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Heliodoxa jacula Juvenile Male.jpg. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Alpine Accentor. MeegsC | Talk 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to commons as File:Prunella collaris -Great Wall.jpg. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to all those who helped get Delichon so quickly through FAC, and thus promote its GT to FT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on reaching the FT goal! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah congrats :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks nice. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Discretion on alternate names in lead

I have been pondering this today as Snowmanradio asked me about it. In the lead we obviously list alternate names that are in use or have some notability, but what about some historical names? case in question is Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo - the alternate names are listed in parrot books but are generally archaic, and as far as I know not really been used since the 19th century. Do we think that all alternate names should be in the lead, or use some discretion to leave disused ones in the taxonomy and naming section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think discretion is fine. If someone is miffed that a favourite name is omtted, they can always add it. Some birds have a lot of names, often with variant spellings. Then there are local names and names borrowed from other languages. I know I have sometimes not included all the variant spellings for a name. Maias (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think discretion is fine as well, and discussion if hard to decide. I'm not sure every local name needs to be included for some species. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Discretion and common sense. If someone insists that the bird is named <whatever> in their part of the world and a quick Google search turns up examples of people really using that name in some context (e.g. the Bonxie), then I see no harm in including it in the lede. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly many local names deserve inclusion in the lead—for sparrows "Mossie" for the Cape Sparrow comes to mind. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And in general, it's a great idea to have current common names somewhere in the article, for people who know the bird only by that name and want information on it. However, I think some leads get bogged down with names, including etymology and POV about what something is "properly" called; then such information is better placed at the end. Using discretion and common sense. :-) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

New article

For comment, reposting from WT:BIOLOGY - Maahesian Mimicry Shyamal (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (63)

Anyone can make amendments; nevertheless, could anyone that has listed a bird for identification please ensure that any amendments or tidy-up work pursuant to their enquiry have been completed. Please list amendments and corrections with updates to document to progress of the enquiry. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We really have no gull ID experts here? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems not. Gulls are up there with nightjars, peeps and empids. Pretty damn hard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (67)

Confirm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
First image of the species on the wiki. Shown in the infobox on the species page. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox image. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Snowy-crowned Robin-chat. • Rabo³ • 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Snowy-crowned Robin-chat uploaded to File:Cossypha niveicapilla -Oregon Zoo, Portland, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Red-crested Cardinal, which was introduced from South America in the 1930s. MeegsC | Talk 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Paroaria coronata Hawaii.jpg. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Gyps sp. I guess Rüppell's, but would have to check a field guide to be sure. • Rabo³ • 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This one's an adult Ruddy Turnstone, coming into breeding plumage. It's probably a male, based on the "cleaner" (i.e. less-patterned) rusty coverts and scapulars. MeegsC | Talk 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Arenaria interpres -Anegada, British Virgin Islands -perching on a boat-8c.jpg with four others from photostream to commons. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is an immature Wedge-tailed Eagle. Immature lacks more golden nape of adult (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly Wedge-tailed. Will leave it for someone else to determine its exact age. • Rabo³ • 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wedge-tailed Eagle uploaded to File:Aquila audax -Australia -with a handler-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably a laughingthrush, will check when I get home. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ha. Already in the taxobox as a Red-winged Laughingthrush. Which I confirm the ID as. Awful shot though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Rename under way to File:Garrulax formosus - front-6.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Red-winged Starling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I see the red in the wings, but the rest of the plumage is brown and black. Other images show more black without the brown. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This image clearly taken in early morning sun, odd colour clearly due to lighting. Concur with ID.. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Onychognathus morio -Cape Town, South Africa-8.jpg without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What else looks like a Red-winged Starling? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have not found out much about the Chestnut-winged Starling, except South Africa is outside its native range. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Any number of starlings from the genus Onychognathus look like the Red-winged Starling. None are found in South Africa except the red-wing (except the atypical Pale-winged Starling). The Chestnut-winged Starling is similar to the Red-winged but with longer legs, a much more massive bill, and the red on the primaries doesn't go to the tip of the feather. It is found in Congolese and West African rainforests, not Cape Town. This is not a Chestnut-winged Starling. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not know if any of the other starling species have become feral or have been introduced in Cape Town. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
None are. Why are you so determined to make this more complicated? It is a common bird in human settlements. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought this was finished when I said "uploaded .... without implying corroboration". This means that I have accepted that others have identified it, but I have not done that much work on it to be in a position to corroborate the identity. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you have listed it here makes it implicit you don't know what it is. Anything anyone lists here is something they are unable to corroborate (unless they couch it like "I think its this, can anyone check?"), you don't need to say it every time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
All birds that I list here give me an identification problem of some sort. For a lot of birds that I have listed here I can not access relevant material for that particular bird, because I can not place the bird. Once it is been identified by the erudite people who look at the birds for identification series, the bird is much easier to look up and it is quite likely that I can find reference to it, and I then go ahead and upload it with out any further comment except to give an update. I look up every bird after has been identified and sometimes I find it very clear that the identification is correct, but sometimes all I can establish is that the identification is not obviously wrong. Sometimes I can not find out much about the identified bird or there are many similar different types, so I rely on the identification skills of others. When I can not corroborate the identity I say so, and, I have never regretted this, because on occasions the identification is subsequently challenged by others, and I think that has been a useful record to say that I can not corroborate the identity when I did. Saying that I can not corroborate the identification is not saying that I think it is wrong, it is usually saying that I can not find anything about the bird in question. I guess most people known what I mean, but a few might not know what corroboration means. Snowman (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough about checking after we've IDed (good way to learn) but When I can not corroborate the identity I say so, and, I have never regretted this, because on occasions the identification is subsequently challenged by others, and I think that has been a useful record to say that I can not corroborate the identity when I did. - this isn't school, and marks will not be deducted for being wrong (or even not disagreeing when someone else is). God knows we all make mistakes in ID (I certainly do), but no one is keeping score (I assume). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just in case I am being misunderstood I would rephrase my badly written sentence to; "When I can not corroborate the identity I say so, and, I have never regretted this, partly because on occasions the identification is subsequently challenged by others, partly because I think that it provides a useful record saying that I could not corroborate the identity that had been put forward at that time, and probably partly because of specific reasons relevant to the particular identification and also some general reasons." Snowman (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure you can tell from this angle; the juvenile is like the adult, but with a shorter crest. Since the crest is largely on the back of the head, the angle isn't good for determination. MeegsC | Talk 03:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The wiki article says; "The sexes are identical, but immatures have a black woolly head without silver streaking." I thought that this bird has got a black woolly head. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Shown in infobox of species page replacing the previous one which was of the upper body. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Zap this

I was inspired by the image of a Zapata Rail to work up the article to GA/FA, and I created Fermín Zanón Cervera en route. Some queries

  • Does anyone have anything (HBW?) that isn't in the rail article?
  • Cyanolimnas - I know Cyano is blue, but what is limnas?
  • Cervera Spanish, but ornithological contributions in Cuba. At present, category just ornithologist, should I make it Spanish or Cuban?
  • Image of Cervera and his Zapata birds I'd like to use this image, but I can't find the original source to establish copyright status. Any ideas
  • Would Cervera, Zapata Rail, Zapata Wren and Zapata Sparrow be a credible FT if the articles were worked up. "Birds discovered by Fermín Zanón Cervera"?

Thanks in advance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The image would be copyvio as the three bird illustrations are from Threatened Birds of the World published in 2000. Limna(s) is Latin for pool, but if this is the reason behind the name I do not know. Scientific names are often direct translations, but not always – e.g. sometimes just latinized local names. As evident by recent discussions which – so far – only have resulted in two replies (although from two of the top authorities in Cuban ornithology; beware that Arturo Kirkconnell is misspelled), it is very poorly known, but it has been suggested that earlier populations estimates now are too high and Critically Endangered may be a more appropriate category. Interesting info about its supposed voice, too. I find it difficult to decipher voices from descriptions, but the descriptions quoted in the wiki article would match the Spotted Rail as I know it from South America. • Rabo³ • 08:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
My library has the book that explains the origin of every generic/specific name. I can certainly look this up, as well as checking the HBW entry. Bond's Birds of the caribbean is another potential source if you can track a copy down. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
limnas will be greek. Annoyingly my lexicon is buried somewhere in a moving/packing box. I think it means 'lined'. If I find my lexicon soon I can add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly Latin for pond and similar stagnant waters, but – as many Latin words – it is entirely possible it originates from Greek. Alternatively, it may mean something different like line in Greek (= lineata et al. in Latin), but if that is the case I doubt this is the meaning intended here, as the Zapata Rail is decidedly "un-lined". Another species with "limnas" in its scientific name is the aptly named Uniform Crake (monotypic genus Amaurolimnas) and a check of avibase shows that "limnas" only is used in scientific names for various water associated rallids. If intended as line, I suspect it would have been used more widely in birds. • Rabo³ • 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice article the rail has, and expanded enough I've nominated it for DYK. I'll look in the Biodiversity Heritage Library: looking at places like that may be good. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
this stuff on anatomy is all I've found. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A slightly expanded FT would be to include the Zapata Swamp. Quite cross-cultural, as the swamp article does not have a WP:BIRDS tag, though it probably should for its ornithological significance. Maias (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did think of that, but the sparrow has other sites, only the nominate ssp is endemic to the swamp. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for comments s so far, interesting but depressing about the song, I'll see if I can expand the description Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's something on uropygial glands that mentions the rail: [1][2]. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I checked out the Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names by James Jobling. Generic name is Ancient Greek kuanos for dark blue and Modern Latin limnas for rail or crake. (pg 66). Specific name for Fermin Z. Cervera, Cuban landowner who seems to have been interested in wildlife ([3]). (pg 47) Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew the cerverai bit because I wrote this, but nice to nail the genus. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

US Fish & Wildlife Service and extinction of a bird

I remember reading somewhere that the US Fish and Wildlife Service refused to allow attempts to resuscitate an endangered American bird species on technical grounds and the bird later became extinct. Can anyone tell me the name of the species and any pointers to the information. Was it Bachman's Reed Warbler? I'm sure the Fish & Wildlife Service does yeoman service over the many decades but I need to read about this with regard to similar examples for Indian birds. AshLin (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Laysan Rail? It came very close to being saved. A small number were due to be sent to Honolulu for breeding but the transfer was delayed because the shipment also had Laysan Finches. But for one bureaucrat the species would still be around. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Have the specimens been frozen? Snowman (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh? What specimens? Besides, I doubt it. The species went extinct in 1943. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
More open-ended question: What happened to the birds after they died? Snowman (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I think you you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick. They were due to be shipped from Midway, where they were running around wild on one of the islets. There was no crate of rails to be shipped - once they were going to do it I assume they would just round some up from the islet. Since they were never given the go ahead the rails stayed on the islet till the rats arrived, whereupon... Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. I assumed that they were captive and ready to be shipped . Snowman (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. AshLin (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sibley and Ahlquist anyone?

Hi all, does anyone have a copy of Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE (1990). Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution handy? I'd love to get the page number(s) where the Corvida parvorder was first discussed in it. One last clarification of ref in Red-capped Robin has eluded me for a while...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's available on "limited preview" at Google Books (without which I couldn't Wikipede). Page 603 looks good, but note the less than helpful sentence about previous publications. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a physical copy if you need anything checked. SP-KP (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
@Jerry - Ack! I'm getting a no preview available on that page...@SP-KP - yes please! I'd be insanely grateful and relieved to double check the page ref (curently ref 9) of the segment at Red-capped_Robin#Taxonomy Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Cas, I forgot that Google shows some pages only to people in the U.S. (and we have no way of telling which ones, as far as I know). Anyway, the Corvida are summarized on p. 603 and the full discussion is on pp. 610–627 (not all available). According to p. 603, they did indeed place all three of the taxa you mention in the Corvida, specifically in superfamily Meliphagoidea. The "Australo-Papuan 'robins'" are a family in the much bigger superfamily Corvoidea. I took a screenshot of that part of the page—email me at jerry_friedman@yahoo.com if you'd like it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that (audible sigh of relief) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (62)

Recategorised. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup. MeegsC | Talk
Recategorised. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think those have to be Black-headed Gulls. The only other black-headed species at List of birds of Germany are accidentals from America—Bonaparte's, Laughing, and Franklin—and in addition to their being unlikely, I believe they'd all show more dark on the head and some white in the primaries.
Möwe is just German for "gull". The German Wikipedia is good for stuff like that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Changed category. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It was taken very close to the bird. :-) Even money it's a Yellow-legged Gull. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, looks spot-on for YLG Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Added. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Move under way to File:Larus michahellis -upper body-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Image now at File:Pantanal 2009.jpg. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (68)

Confirm ID - non-Kiwi name being Australian Pied Cormorant. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Phalacrocorax varius -New Zealand -swimming-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not in the African Fish Eagle's juvenile plumage mentioned in Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson, which is mottled where this bird is white. It does seem odd. The bill should be dark at all ages. The adult should have a yellow cere and legs, and the juvenile should have light gray ones, maybe as light as this bird (I don't know). These bare parts are the same in southern Africa (Arlott, Hockey, and Sinclair), and the description of the plumage is only slightly different. So maybe it's in some weird transition between juvenile and adult, or maybe it's an adult with aberrantly low pigment in the beak and legs and retained juvenile white under the wings. Or some plumage that isn't in the books I looked at. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This looks like the subspecies indus of the Brahminy Kite. MeegsC | Talk 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Haliastur indus -Jurong Bird Park, Singapore-8a.jpg on commons. If anyone is certain of the subspecies please add this to the image description. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... Looks a lot like a male Scarlet-chested Parrot, but there appears to be too much scarlet on the chest! It should have rich yellow underparts, with scarlet only on the chest. Perhaps it's a hybrid? MeegsC | Talk 14:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
To me it looks more like a male Turquoise Parrot, but there seems to me too much red on its front, so I also wondered if it was a hybrid or an individual with rather a lot of red. Forshaw (2006) says that some Turquoise Parrots have a central red patch on their front, but I am not sure how much red. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Turquoise is correct, some individuals have a lot of red. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Neophema splendida -Flying High Bird Habitat -male-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Sonwman, it is NOT a scarlet, but a Turquoise. Turquoise has red in the wing, scarlet has not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, rename under way to File:Neophema pulchella -Flying High Bird Habitat -male-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Chestnut-capped Blackbird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Chestnut-capped Blackbird uploaded to File:Chrysomus ruficapillus -Zoologico de Americana, Sao Paulo, Brazil -two-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Location details added to image description without implying corroboration. At this location it would probably be a nominate or chapmani. It would be in the wrong location for an inornata from the western coastal band of Ecuador. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Saffron Finch. • Rabo³ • 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Saffron Finch uploaded to File:Sicalis flaveola -Cincinnati Zoo, Ohio, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Egretta gularis -Oman -on a beach-8.jpg on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Great Black-backed Gull. MeegsC | Talk 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Larus marinus -Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA -flying holding crab with beak-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Red-rumped parakeet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Updated. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Bad name file of a Red-rumped Parrot listed for deletion in favour of duplicate File:Psephotus haematonotus -Canberra -Australia-8.jpg. The derivative bad name file File:Neophema pulchella 2.jpg also listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Back in the swamp

Since it's fairly short, I'm tempted to take Zapata Rail, complete with its photo of the real James Bond, straight to FAC. Any comments, copyediting etc will be gratefully recieved. In particular, does the lead need anything else? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed out two sources on anatomy: do you want to look through these first? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The lead doesn't seem to summarise everything; why isn't the catfish mentioned in the text? I think it needs a little work, and perhaps it should go through GA review first. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought the lead was a bit thin. I read your sources, and incorporated a little of the anatomical stuff, although there was too much detail to use much of it in an encyclopaedia article. The gland article was interesting, but about flightless rails in general, and since the conclusion was that its presence or absence wasn't related to flightlessness, there wasn't much to add. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I know a lot of the things in the source I pointed out are not necessary for the article, but most could be included if it suits you; and some things, such as the relative length and shape of the bill, surely ought to be mentioned. If you send this to FAC I'll add make a full review of it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That picture of Bond is great! Do you think I ought to illustrate Saxaul Sparrow with an image of Nikolai Severtzov or John Gould? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Why not? Either or both. Maias (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Canary or Atlantic Canary

Should the article about the species with the common name Canary be at Atlantic Canary, the IOC name? Snowman (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably at Atlantic Canary with Canary being the dab page for the many many uses. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of South Carolina/archive1

This featured list candidate desperately needs reviews, if anybody has the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (69)

Large Cactus Finch. Please remember to note that it was taken on Española Island, the Galápagos, as there are significant racial variations in this species. • Rabo³ • 16:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you: Large Cactus Finch (IOC name) with an article on wiki called Large Cactus-finch: Uploaded to commons at File:Geospiza conirostris -Espanola Island, Galapagos, Ecuador-8.jpg without implying corroboration: First image of the spices on the wiki and shown on species page: There are several other images on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. • Rabo³ • 16:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it a cardueline finch? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is a Southern Grey-headed Sparrow; it lacks any kind of wingbar, any brownon the wings, rump and tail. The Southern Grey-headed Sparrow also lacks any kind of white stripe above the eye. Don't have any field guides to Southern Africa, sorry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me to be consistent with White-throated Canary, Crithagra albogularis, but I am not certain. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur, it certainly looks like that species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Rename under way to File:Serinus albogularis -Namibia-6.jpg. First image of the species on the wiki. Awaiting rename to be completed before showing image on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
How was its location determined? Snowman (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Reported by the photographer. Seems likely. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Where did you see this reported? Snowman (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Can't find the page. It had a map showing where the photo was taken. —innotata 21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Adult Red-shouldered Hawk, Buteo lineatus elegans, subspecies recognized by range, solid rufous breast, intense coloring. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Buteo lineatus -Stanford, California, USA-8.jpg on commons. This is the un-cropped un-enhanced version from flickr. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You wouldn't be deferring to me but to the Birds of North America Online, if I found something that seemed to disagree. But from what I can see there, I agree. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm Black Crowned Crane, can't comment on subspecies. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Balearica pavonina -St Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park, Florida, USA -upper body-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Southern White-faced Owl. Much better than our existing shot. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ptilopsis granti -Chobe River front, Botswana-8.jpg on commons and selected for the infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

60 FAs

With Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo, WikiProject Birds has 60 featured articles. It looks like there'll only be more: none of the featured articles look ready for review, though many lack alt texts; and lots more FAs are in the works. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Onwards and upwards then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of the older bird FAs are not completely covered with references. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't found anything major. By the way, the collaboration, Passerine, doesn't seem to be going anywhere; I'll try adding some things, but it won't be much, since I don't have many appropriate (book) references. —innotata 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've started looking through all the FAs. Most older ones have a few statements that require citations, but with those in alphabetical order from Albatross to Golden White-eye, only Albatross has a really serious lack. Arctic Tern is looking a bit small and could be incomplete; I've realised that my sparrow articles are among the most densely cited (I took Giano's suggestion that FAs have nearly all sentences cited). —innotata 23:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
King Vulture, Procellariidae, and Seabird, among others, could do with a little referencing improvement. Some, such as Arctic Tern and White-breasted Nuthatch, seem they may be incomplete. —innotata 00:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Albatross, Procellariidae and Seabird are mine, and were featured before the requirements for citations went completely retarded (citations on every sentence? WTF? Even journal articles don't do this.). Part of me is inclined not to bother doing anything about them as they are still excellent articles regardless of whether they conform to an arbitrary (and ever shifting) criteria, but they shouldn't take too much work so I'll see to them soon. Pretty much all the info that needs citing comes from three books, two of which I can probably get hold of. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What I have taken to doing now is that it a citation is covering more than one sentence, then I will make a commented out not in the script highlighting how many previous sentences it covers - to avoid a run of teh same reference over three or four sentences or paragraph. There are some isolated tags it would be good to fix. I found a new one in Macaroni Penguin and fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a rule for anything like citations on every sentence (the criteria say you still can have just a list at the bottom, but such articles will probably get nowhere at FAC), but the essays on this recommend you get quite close to this, and articles on broad topics often do this since they use so many sources (House Sparrow is heading that way). I don't try to actually have one or two citations for each sentence, though I do cite densely, and some large sections of articles like Russet Sparrow end up with two or three citations per sentence. —innotata 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

GAN FYI

Great Tit has just joined Zapata Rail at Good Article Nominations. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Some more bizarre Galah x Cacatua sp. hybirds...

Found some pics here, for those interested in such things. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They look very odd. Commons has a small collection of hybrid bird photographs. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification - proposed subpage

May I suggest moving "Birds for identification" discussions to a dedicated sub-page? Then those particularly interested can watch that; and those not interested can watch this page without seeing frequent updates in their watch-list? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I recall this has been discussed before, but I can not find it in the archives. As far as I am aware, this is a project where almost all of the discussion takes place on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Andy, if you just hover over the (hist) in front of it in your watchlist you can instantly see the recent edit summaries without wasting time opening this page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That may only be for certain browsers — it doesn't work with Safari, for example... MeegsC | Talk 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the feature that Jim mentions needs one to install some Javascripts like Wikipedia:Twinkle (available via the preferences->gadgets links). As for the page, I think it is easy to ignore many of the changes. After all this does seem to keep the page and the group alive and active. Shyamal (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I use Firefox and allow javascripts, but I don't use twinkle Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Archive 49/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Archive 49/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
...I take it the redlink means we have no unreferenced bios. So, we can go on ignoring this? Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No it means that I messed up the link, I fixed it now. Currently your project has zero unreferenced BLPs on this list, that doesn't necessarily mean that all unreferenced BLPs regarding birds are referenced though, there could be a variety of reasons that those unreferenced BLPs do not show up on the list. One is that those unreferenced BLPs do not have the bird wikiproject template on their talk pages, xeno's bot can help with this. Another problem could be that the way your project has categories is fragmented, with several categories instead of one main category, which means I would need to add a wild card to your listing on the bot page.
If you are interested, sign up for xeno bot, and/or drop a message at the user page of dashbot. thanks. Okip 01:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that we mostly deal with birds probably means we are on fairly safe ground here. Most famous ornithologists are either dead or need lots of refs just to establish notability. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Distribution Maps

With the Distrobution Map... I've been ussing Red with 70% Saturation and 70% Brightness... I think it looks better, but is it Okay? Nrg800 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please link a page here that shows one of these maps? Snowman (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have had a look at White-headed Pigeon, Banded Lapwing, Musk Duck and Chestnut-backed Buttonquail. I have no real problem with the colour, though my first impression was that it could be slightly brighter, though I am glad it does not appear fluorescent. I also think it is great that you are adding distribution maps to articles that lacked them. I am not sure where you are getting the distribution info from - it does not seem to be from HANZAB or the New Atlas of Australian Birds, which would probably be the most accurate sources. It does seem to give a reasonable idea of distribution, though one can almost always find things to quibble about. Anyway, goodonya for making the effort. Maias (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
PS. I realise that you are not just doing Australian fauna, which is what I was referring to above. I suggest adding references in the articles (with in-line cites in the map captions) to the various sources you must be using. Maias (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The image description on commons should have a source too. I think colours that are too bright are out-of-character with the rest of the page. I think the colours are OK as they are, but they could be duller. Snowman (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been using the Pizzy and Knight guide for the birds, IUCN for Mammals and Amphibians and Fishbase for Fish, though I might use Birdata from now on! Nrg800 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Circus hudsonius

Supposedly different species than C. cyaneus. Can anyone confirm (and split/edit articles)? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did you read this? I don't think this is likely to be well accepted for some time: as with most America-Eurasia splits. —innotata 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think at all, which is why I'm asking for confirmation. Came across this while checking links en:de and back. Two different birds on de:wp, one bird on en:wp, and this suggestion[4] was enough for me to try to check into this. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added a comment here. • Rabo³ • 21:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. I'll leave it to the Dead Old Man to insist if he so wishes. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Eurasian Crag Martin

Anything from eg HBW or Rasmussen to add to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a few small details, will try and add them when I have time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Francolinus rovuma

Is there a reason why Kirk's Francolin (Francolinus rovuma) does not have a wiki page, or should it be included with Francolinus sephaena; see Avibase. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Avibase clearly shows it is usually recognised as a subspecies of the Crested Francolin. —innotata 21:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Avibase says of the Kirk's Francolin; "full species (sometimes considered a subspecies)". Snowman (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Not recognised by the IUCN Red List or IOC world bird list. Interestingly the IOC World bird list has the genus of the Crested Francolin as a monotypic Dendroperdix. At present I'd suggest that Kirk's Francolin (Francolinus rovuma redirect to Crested Francolin, and it be mentioned there (along with the differing genus treatments), but I'm open to any evidence beyond Avibase that would merit its status as a species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and Avibase lists the Clement checklist and other authorities as recognising Kirk's Francolin as a subspecies. —innotata 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FT news

  • I don't now think that Cervera, Zapata Rail, Zapata Wren and Zapata Sparrow is a runner for FT...
  • ... so it has to be the Ptyonoprogne crag martins next (another Hirundinidae I'm afraid). All the articles are currently stubbish, so I'm not asking for content help yet.
  • However, I could do with a meaning for the genus name
  • I'm tempted to do one map for the whole genus, which will reduce the amount of work - any volunteers?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I've added an explanation, but please check that it agrees with yours Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The entry in the dictionary of birds doesn't quite match your explanation; it says "no explanation but probably from Greek ptuon a fan and genus Progne for martin. Ref to tail shape. Pg 194. It seems the original author offered no explanation, which at the very least should be mentioned. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's near enough, since the reason that progne can be taken as meaning "martin" is from the story of the Greek girl anyway (she was turned into a swallow {or possibly a nightingale}). I've clarified that the fan refers to tail shape. Is in normal for authorities to explain their choice of binomial? Linnaeus didn't, but he was using mainly the Greek or Latin equivalents, whcih he would have assumed would be understood by his readers. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right about Linnaeus, but isn't it normal for authors to explain names (especially now)? Some names, though, are complete mysteries. Nice seeing "another Hirundidae". Are you going to try for a Swallow featured topic? There are not quite so many swallows as hummingbirds, you know. —innotata 18:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think "especially now" is the key phrase, not necessarily in 1758 or 1832. "Swallows" is actually probably feasible as a featured topic either as subfamilies (3 articles, one already GA) or genera (17 articles max, less if Hirundo lumped, 1 existing FA for Delichon.) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (71)

Southern Boubou, probably a female given how washed out the buff on the belly and flanks is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Laniarius ferrugineus -Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Lilac-breasted Roller Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Coracias caudatus -Serengeti, Tanzania-8.jpg on commons. The adults of that species have long outer tail feathers, so I presume that it is a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a female Cape Weaver. The long, pointed bill is one of its ID features. MeegsC | Talk 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Cape Weavers? —innotata 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Cape Weaver has not got a black face. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Cape Town is in the range of the Masked Weaver. Bird 714 looks like a male Village Weaver, but according to my out-of-date range map Cape Town is too far east for a Village Weaver. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Male Southern Masked Weavers are quite similar to male Village Weavers (at least in the subspecies found in southern South Africa) — and they're found in Cape Town. MeegsC | Talk 22:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was a bit puzzled by the amount of yellow on the head. Could it be a male Southern Masked Weaver with plumage in a state of flux? Snowman (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely! It's in heavy moult — possibly a youngster just moulting into its first adult plumage, or an adult changing from non-breeding into breeding plumage. But even in full breeding plumage, only the face is black; most of the head is yellow. MeegsC | Talk 01:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
According to an illustration in Robert's the male's face and forehead are black in breeding condition. Snowman (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
To me, the amount of black & yellow on the face fits well with pictures and descriptions. I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing! MeegsC | Talk 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The face is only a small area of the head. It looks like the image and text in Roberts indicate more black above the beak going back over top of the head in male in breeding condition. See File:Ploceus velatus -Johannesburg -male making nest-8.jpg - black above beak seen. Anyway, this does not describe Bird 715, if it is moulting. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think this is a Southern Masked Weaver. You do realize that young and non-breeding males are completely yellow (like the females), right? So they'll show LOTS more yellow than a breeding male — and will take some number of weeks to gain (or regain) their full black faces and foreheads. But if you've got a better suggestion, suggest away! MeegsC | Talk 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that you are correct. This bird is moulting and it does not have the full area of black on its head (including the top of its head above its beak) as a male in breeding condition. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Southern Masked Weaver uploaded to File:Ploceus velatus -Cape Town, South Africa -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Male Crested Francolin; the pale supercilium is a good ID feature, and that cocked tail is a useful behavioural feature! MeegsC | Talk 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Francolinus sephaena -Kruger National Park, South Africa-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I can not see any spurs in the image. What makes you think it is a male? Snowman (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that not all male francolins have spurs (depends on species) and not all spurred francolins are males. —innotata 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The text in Robert's says that the male of this species has spurs. Snowman (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Crested Bobwhite. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Colinus cristatus -Curacao, Netherlands Antilles-8a.jpg on commons. The wiki has a painting of the species, and this is first photograph of the species on the wiki. Shown in infobox on species page. I can not find out much about this bird - is this one a male? Snowman (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
According to what I can glean from a Yahoo translate website the photograph is probably from Taitung, Taiwan. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Split of pale chanting goshawks

Since I don't have time at the moment to do the split, I put a split tag at Pale Chanting Goshawk, following Rabo3's suggestion. Comments are welcome. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments starting the discussion on Talk:Pale Chanting Goshawk sound convincing. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and thanks to Innotata. Consider it split, though it needs more work, such as what these things eat. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of identificationBr11n (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC) before Wiki updates are submitted

At present I live in Debre Berhan, Ethiopia. I have many bird photographs in my locality which I would like to be able to submit to WikiProject Birds pages. Is there some way I can get someone to check my identification before I actually click the 'Save Page' button? The identification difficulty is compounded by my belief that several existing stubs are incorrect or incomplete. e.g. Would someone please look at my Pectoral Patch Cisticola pictures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pectoral_patch_cisticola4.jpg I identified these from Sinclair and Ryan: Birds of Africa, whose distribution map includes these highlands. The wiki pages put this species in the lowlands. Moreover the photograph appears to be a diferent species to the one on the wikki stub. Please not that internet access is very slow and unreliable here (shared dialup link), so I may not respond immediately. We frequently have periods of ten days or so with no internet access. Br11n (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian. Excellent pic. Just one technical point, on your Commons uploads, can you make it clear that Brian Boulton and Br11n are one and the same please. I know it seems obvious, but if your images are used in a WP:FAC, the nominator will have to show that the uploader and the photographer the same person. If you are not sure of the identity of a bird, upload the image to commons anyway and post a message here (see the many Birds for Identification requests above). If we identify it, it can be reuploaded by one of us (quicker that using your dialup) and the original listed for deletion by a commons admin. Hope this helps, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, you could upload them to flickr as a batch upload - that would be quicker. If you tell us which is your flickr photostream, then we could identify them or discuss them. Providing you use a flickr creative commons license that permits modification and commercial use, then we can upload them from flickr to commons. A first you could upload small (and/or compressed) versions of your photographs to flickr, and then upload the full size versions of the pictures we are interested in to flickr or commons. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If you do that, you can put them in the "ID Please" pool on Flickr, which means more people will see them and try to identify them. As you can see, we here don't manage to ID everything. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey Brian, according to HBW the Pectoral-patch Cisticola is indeed a highland species; the Wiki page does not reflect the split of the Pale-crowned Cisticola, which can occur at sea level in South Africa. Looking through the HBW cisticolas it seems to be the only one found as high as you took the photo and has those markings, so I have confidence in your identification. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaffir Rail and African Rail

Kaffir Rail and African Rail appear to be two different articles about a bird with the same binomial name. Have there been classification changes? Snowman (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a simple cock-up; We made an article without a redirect for species name, Polbot couldn't find an article, created a second article. Unsurprisingly the IOC went with the unracist name, so Kaffir rail should be merged into African. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Merged. —innotata 19:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Double redirects fixed after page changed to a redirect. Snowman (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Zapata Rail

The Zapata Rail is now creeping through an even more dangerous swamp Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:EASTEREGG#Intuitiveness for guidelines on use of piped links and avoiding hidden messages (or Easter eggs). Snowman (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Those are for articles, not humorous comments amongst ourselves. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that the Easter egg link is likely to impel people to click on the link, which is potentially a waste of time. The humorous comment could have been followed by the link to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Zapata_Rail/archive1#Zapata_Rail. Further, it may encourage new editors to use Easter egg links improperly. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Besides, if you wanted to check a link before "wasting your time", all you had to do was hover your cursor over the link to see what it was! MeegsC | Talk 23:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Readers will not see the hidden reference unless they click or hover over the piped link. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hummingbird questions

According to the Proteaceae volume of the Flora Neotropica, Oreocallis is visited by three species of hummingbird—Mettalura trianthera, Aylcactis cupripennis and Coeligena iris. While we have an article about the third species, there are no articles on the first two, not even at the genus level. The more I thought about it, the more unlikely that seemed to me, so I looked at the List of hummingbirds in taxonomic order, and found two very likely candidates: Metallura tyrianthina, Aglaeactis cupripennis. The first suggestion was courtesy Google, but in the second case even The Google was stumped. I just had to search the list of genera.

Now both of the matches are correct in terms of range, but I thought I would ask here to see if anyone could think of any other likely candidates for plants which are found in Ecuador and Peru. Now all I need to do is figure out how to justify the OR... Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Peruvian Wildlife: A Visitor's Guide mentions that the Scaled Metaltail pollinates this plant. (Retaliating for the misspellings of the hummingbird names, it misspells Oreocallis.)
I think correcting obvious misspellings is very minor OR, if at all. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree - I think correcting an obvious and unambiguous misspelling is fine and does not fall under OR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with pages for Pale-Crowned Cisticola and Pectoral-Patch Cisticola

If this request is out of order my excuse is that today I can't get an internet connection to stay open long enough to browse. Consequent to Sabine's Sunbird's confirmation of my Pectoral-patch cisticola pic I an preparing a new wikki entry for Pectoral-patch cisticola. It appears to me that the existing page for pp-cisticola should be unlinked from pc-cisticola and renamed Pale-crowned cisticola. (Even though it's pic may be suspect). The range needs correcting. A new stub should be created for Pectoral-patch cisticola, to which I can then add correct data and appropriate picture(s). I doubt that I have the privileges for this, or the internet connection. Can someone do this for me? Br11n (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You have the privileges—all it takes is a login. (I just did this with the pale chanting goshawks.) The internet connection is another matter.
Avibase lists the African Bird Club, the Commission internationale pour les noms français des oiseaux, Clements, Howard and Moore, and the IOC as recognizing the split. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (70)

  • Rufous-collared Sparrow of the rather distinctive australis subspecies. Photo from Los Glaciares National Park, Argentina. • Rabo³ • 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna go with Dark-faced Ground-tyrant. The picture in my HBW has quite a bit of chestnut on the crown and front (although the descripton says "crown dull chestnut brown", which suggests the deepness of colour in the illustration is a mistake) , which this picture doesn't have, but as you can see from this shot it is really pale even on a photo with good colour, and the colour is really washed out on the flickr photo. Not much else in Tierra de Fuego this could be. The title of the image apparently refers to the location, Lago Escondido. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Pale Chanting Goshawk file rename under way to File:Melierax canorus -Etosha National Park, Namibia-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Juvenile chanting goshawks, as the one on the photo, are rather pale-legged. I'll have to check the literature for separating Eastern Chanting and Dark Chanting, but if memory serves me well it is no easy task and mainly about small differences in the hue of certain parts (wings, rump or alike). If that is the case, no reason to assume the photographer, who had the possibility checking all the correct things and was in a better position to judge light in the field, is wrong in Dark Chanting. Regardless, our Pale Chanting Goshawk article really has to be split. We're using absolutely ancient taxonomy not followed by any recent authority when we're insisting on treating Eastern and (Southern) Pale as subspecies of a single sp. • Rabo³ • 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's Eastern. The appearance is pretty much identical, although the pale tips to the greater coverts might favor Eastern. But the range seems to settle it; Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson say they don't occur together anywhere, and Dark is only in western Kenya, not in Amboseli, so this must be Eastern. Unless Rabo3 or someone has a better way to decide. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
My second-hand Robert's Birds of South African has illustrations of juvenile chanting goshawks with red legs - and the legs are very clearly painted red for both juvenile Pale and Dark Chanting Hawks. Unfortunately, the illustrations do not show the upper side of the tail feathers, and it is too out-of-date to update the taxonomy in wiki articles. Could yellow legs and narrow stripes on upper-leg feathers be consistent with a Honey Buzzard, African Goshawk, Red-breasted Sparrowhawk, or perhaps something else? Snowman (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The legs of this bird could be bright blue and it would still be a chanting goshawk (careful with the frequent mistake of placing too much weight on a single feature that seemingly does not match a certain species when everything else match). Even the best field guide includes "inconsistencies" and bare part colours are particularly hard hit, as they commonly change after death (i.e., wrong colour in specimens, the basis for most field guides). I suspect the source of the problem in Robert's (probably the best guide for southern Africa, though it's a bit too big for easy field use) is that the change in leg-colour reputedly happens before the major change in plumage, i.e. "older juveniles" may have the juvenile plumage in combination with bare-part colours approaching that of adults. Checking a few other sources confirm the info on range provided by JerryFriedman, and for that reason I'll also agree on Eastern. • Rabo³ • 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the text in Robert's is says that the legs of young chanting hawks are yellow and that the legs go red before they get their adult plumage. What is the binomial name of this bird according to the new taxonomy? Does the file name need changing? Snowman (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Melierax poliopterus. ZTP don't mention any subspecies. I should have mentioned that a view of the upper- or undertail coverts would have been diagnostic, but this picture doesn't provide that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Rename under way on commons to File:Melierax poliopterus -Amboseli National Park, Kenya -juvenile-8.jpg. Commons has a category for this species and it now contains four images. Snowman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
White-winged Snowfinch. • Rabo³ • 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Uploaded to File:Montifringilla nivalis -Trentino.jpg. —innotata 17:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Good find. Snowman (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking for Italian Sparrow images. Didn't find many, but I've found a few of Passer hybrids you may want to see. —innotata 21:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The region where the photo was taken has the whole mess of Isabellines, Red-backeds, Rufous and whatever else is out there. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Confirm. Based on location and plumage colour tentatively IDed as nominate race. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Two juvenile Bateleurs. MeegsC | Talk 23:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to commons as File:Terathopius ecaudatus -Chobe River front, Botswana -juvenile.jpg and shown on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Saxaul Sparrow

This article only needs some images Shyamal is working on to be completed, and a longer lead, before going to GAN. It is a really poorly known bird, and I won't take it to FAC. However, I'd like to make it as complete as possible since not much information on this species is available online. Most literature on this species is in Russian and some more is in German; but does anybody have any sources not used in the article yet? I believe recent sources like the HBW have more to say about the species than was noted a few decades ago; and a citation for the derivation of the bird's species name is needed. —innotata 20:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I will be taking this to FAC, some time. —innotata 13:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody comment on the writing? —innotata 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class bird articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Three of the four Bird Project books have covers that I at least am happy with, but I discovered a fourth book, Book:Gentoo Penguins, I wasn't aware of. The creators don't appear to be active. Some points
  • Do any of the southern hemisphere people (or anyone else) want to add an appropriate cover image - I've put one in as a place holder, but just a random selsction?
  • The content of a book doesn't have to be a GT or FT. The Gentoo has FA, FA, GA, B and Start, although obviously decent content is highly desirable. Should we be writing more books outside the FT/GT framework?
  • If so, should we have a project virtual library of the books once we have enough virtual volumes?
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (72)

Tyrannus, but beyond that I'm confused. It seems to have the bill and greenish breast of a Tropical Kingbird, but the white tail feathers and gray back of a Western Kingbird. Maybe someone will unconfuse me. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Tropical Kingbird, according to three contributors to Birdchat. The apparent pale color of the tail is an effect of the light. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Adult Yellow-crowned Night-Heron. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Nyctanassa violacea -Palo Verde National Park, Costa Rica - in tree-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Rufous-collared Sparrow. MeegsC | Talk 02:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Zonotrichia capensis -Machu Picchu, Peru-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Spotted is correct. Both names are actually accurate—Spotted has those white spots on the back, and Eastern isn't normally found that far west. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirm Marsh Wren. The range suggests subspecies browningi, which is supposed to be the grayest and least rufous, but I can't see that in this picture. Maybe someone with more knowledge of this species and better color vision can tell you whether this is definitely browningi. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Adult male Brewer's Blackbird. I assume the chick is the same species. :-) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I find it difficult to distinguish between these and Crackles. To me the chick looks too small to be out of the nest. Uploaded to File:Euphagus cyanocephalus -Oakland, California, USA -adult male with chick-8b.jpg, with three other from the photo-steam. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Grackles have long tails that tend to fold with a V-shaped cross-section, that is, the outer rectrices are raised. I agree with you about the chick and asked at the photo page what was going on. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

fuligula

I can't see any obvious connection between a Rock Martin and a Tufted Duck. Can someone source a meaning for fuligula please? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Sooty-throated", it says here. I must admit I can't quite see the Rock Martin's sooty throat. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jerry - and while the throat of the duck is definitely sooty, so is most of the rest of it! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_49&oldid=1137392130"