Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

Birds for identification (82)

female Red-capped Plover I think...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This one has me stumped. Thinking of small brown birds which might fit the bill I come up with Jacky Winter or Dusky Robin but it doesn't look like either of those. I will ask an aussie bird mailing list. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some juvenile robin possibly; the juves tend to more speckling than the adults. I looked at the illustrations in HANZAB - Dusky Robin maybe, but needs further confirmation. Maias (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I had quite a few replies, most thinking juvenile Dusky Robin, but a few queried juvenile Red-capped Robin or even Flame Robin, and one thought Speckled Warbler. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that Scarlet Robin (juvenile or female) should be on the differential list. Snowman (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I forgot that one, someone else mentioned that too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Tasmanian Native-hen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Gallinula mortierii -Tasmania-8a.jpg on commons and selected for infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Dusky Woodswallow. nice to get more pix of this one as is a GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Artamus cyanopterus -Tasmania-8.jpg on commons, and shown on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Turquoise Parrot. Maias (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Looks like a male. Rename under way to File:Neophema pulchella -captive -male-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that these pics are taken in Tasmania, Shy Albatross. Maias (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No idea; does not look much like anything in Tassie. Maias (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: after another look, bill and brownish mantle suggest Grey Shrike-thrush, Tas ssp. strigata. Maias (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Colluricincla harmonica -Tasmania-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Bassian Thrush. Maias (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Zoothera lunulata -Tasmania-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Tasmanian Scrubwren. Maias (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Sericornis humilis -Tasmania-8.jpg and shown in infobox of species page. It is first photo of the species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

IOC names again...

I don't recall where we got up to with these. I noticed Grey Shrike-thrush is at that name whereas IOC have dispensed with the hyphen. Any opposition to moving over? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - found the subpage and will try to review a few families today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

I had this this posting on my talk page, referring to this this FL nom. Please feel free to comment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fruit Dove

Administrator assistance requested to move Fruit Dove to Fruit dove - to fix capitalisation for a collective term. Snowman (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Assistance arrived. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (80)

Already in Commons at File:Black Throated Finch (1).jpg and shown at White-bridled Finch (both names for the same bird). Two unsigned edits by User JerryFriedman at 18:42, 24 May 2010
Thank you. I have uploaded the other one in the flickr photostream to Commons. Snowman (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've renamed to File:Melanodera melanodera (1).jpg Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The new file name is clearer. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
ID correct. • Rabo³ • 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
ID correct. Ssp. palmae. • Rabo³ • 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Common Cactus Finch. • Rabo³ • 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Common Cactus Finch uploaded to File:Geospiza scandens -Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos Islands-8b.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Common Cactus Finch. • Rabo³ • 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Common Cactus Finch uploaded to File:Geospiza scandens -Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos Islands-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Small Ground Finch. • Rabo³ • 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Small Ground Finch uploaded to File:Geospiza fuliginosa -South Plaza Island, Galapagos Islands-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Female Northern Cardinal. MeegsC | Talk 21:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cardinalis cardinalis -Kauai, Hawaii, USA -female-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Galápagos Flycatcher. • Rabo³ • 16:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Galapagos Flycatcher uploaded to File:Myiarchus magnirostris -Galapagos-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Green Woodhoopoe. The dark bill suggests it's a youngster. MeegsC | Talk 02:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Phoeniculus purpureus -ZooParc de Beauval, France -juvenile-8a.jpg on commons without implying corroberation. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the upload, and for the identification. I had not seen an identification panel for it, at the zoo... --Edhral 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a Green-barred Woodpecker (including Golden-breasted Woodpecker) or Spot-breasted Woodpecker. Certainly not a Lineated Woodpecker, contrary to the photographer. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree: Green-barred. MeegsC | Talk 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Colaptes melanochloros -Pinhal, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil-8.jpg on commons without implying corroberation. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Birds

The list of NZ birds does not include Pied Stilts. Is there a reason? They are very common. 219.88.75.66 (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Inexplicably absent from the list; I have added it. Maias (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (83)

Red-whiskered Bulbul Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Pycnonotus jocosus -London Zoo, England-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anas hottentota -London Zoo, England-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Somateria spectabilis -Central Park Zoo, New York, USA -male-8a.jpg on commons. Selected for the infobox image on the species page. Snowman (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Grey Fantail. Maias (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Rhipidura albiscapa -Tasmania-8.jpg on commons. This one seems paler than some of the other photographs. Is there a reason for this? Snowman (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually seems slightly darker to me, but that is presumably an artefact of lighting and exposure. Maias (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Some have a pinkish front, but this one does not. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the plumage of juveniles can be more buffy coloured than that of the adults. Maias (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this one a juvenile, female, or a male? Snowman (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sexes are similar. I would guess it is an adult, but cannot confirm that. Maias (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Silvereye --Melburnian (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Zosterops lateralis -Tasmania-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Great Cormorant (left) and Black-faced Cormorant. Maias (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Phalacrocorax carbo and Phalacrocorax fuscescens -Tasmania-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirm American Robin. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Turdus migratorius -Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, USA -juvenile-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anser anser -Utterslev Mose, Denmark -parents and gosling-8.jpg on commons with several others from the same photo set. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. --Snek01 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Gape

I just created this article for an upcoming POTD, but since I am not a birder nor ornithologist, I would appreciate it if people here could check it out for any errors or possible expansion. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 20:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

This FTC seems to have stalled a bit, any comments would be welcome. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block request for Diet Of Frogs And Rodents vandal

Now at 67.248.178.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), continuing after warning (should have been blocked earlier, but admins at WP:AIV seems more inclined to warn a few times first). See Diet Of Frogs And Rodents for more info on his background. Thanks, First Light (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. First Light (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Liocichla phoenicea and Liocichla ripponi

I did the following research having seen what turned out to be the species Liocichla ripponi in N Thailand last week. Thought it might be of some help if someone wants to update the Red-faced Liocichla and Red-faced Liocichla entries

Robson’s 2008 edition has split L ripponi from L phoenicea (ripponi previously regarded as a subspecies as far as I can see). Both previously known as Red-faced. Robson calls L phoenicea Crimson-faced in the latest edition. He has ripponi as Scarlet-faced.

The IOC list also has ripponi as Scarlet-faced (and references Robson and Collar as their sources).

So IOC and Robson agree 100% on ripponi as a separate species and on the English name Scarlet-faced.

The confusion lies with L phoenicea which Robson now calls Crimson-faced while the IOC list maintains Red-faced. Both seem to agree on distribution (taking a broad interpretation of what they have to say on this), so the only difference is the common name.

Hope this may be of some help ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardB (talk • contribs) 03:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Didn't take a photo by any chance? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (84)

Australian Magpie. The location is given as Warrnambool, Victoria.--Melburnian (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Colours seem distorted and it is hard to see the key features but the deep tail fork, the tones of the primaries and late season (March) suggest it could be a Black Drongo rather than Ashy Drongo (unable to get a feel for the scale, that area should also have Bronzed Drongo). Shyamal (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • There is some information on this in the wiki article, which I read before listing this bird here. I would be grateful for more comments on the identification of this bird. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Mindanao has a green head, upper back and breast sides. the adult has abuff belly below the "heart", and the juvenile is blue-grey. The juvenile of Mindanao has much browner wings than the adult, so I wondered if that was true of Luzon too? If the colour is poorly represented, it could be Mindanao though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I can not find out much about Gallicolumba crinigera bartletti. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Shown on species page as an example of a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirm. I question the need to verify Dario's IDs, he's been pumping out photos for years and I've never personally seen him get one wrong. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming identification of this bird. I could not find out much about this genus, so I needed to ask for confirmation. Incidentally, is it a male, female, or juvenile? I would not encourage anyone to blindly upload images from flickr. I would be grateful if you would see Bird 842, which is one of Dario's that I has listed for more information to clarify if the bird is male of female. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest doing nothing blindly. I"m simply saing that in this particular instance it simply is the case that Dario has been photographing birds in his local area for years, and clearly knows a great deal more than any of us about them. Throw in the advantages of identifying birds in the field over using photographs, and I'm more inclined to trust him than us. My books can't help with 842, but I suspect that Jim is right about juvie males looking like females. This tyrant is a female of the nominate race btw. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I take various things into account when I opt to list a photograph of a bird here. However, it is entirely up to me when I ask for a consensus for an identification for the images that I upload, and I will take the steps that I think are necessary to identify bird photographs that I show on the wiki or upload to commons. Please respect this. Snowman (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No disrespect was intended, merely a suggestion, along with a respect for the abilities of an important contributor to the cause of free information. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Generally, I would guess that fair talented people would not mind fair comments of their published work. I think that Dario's has an reputation for excellence. When people agree with his identification of birds, then surly his reputation will be maintained or perhaps enhanced. I do not have many really good books on birds except for parrot books, so I often search the internet to confirm bird identities and this can be problematic. I could not quickly find out much about this bird, and I am aware that highly erudite people do help with the identity of birds here. See this edit by User Rabo3 including his comment about this bird, which is shown in the infobox of the Surucua Trogon (Trogon surrucura) wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It could be one of the firefinches, but I am not certain. Snowman (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
File:Passer griseus 0008.jpg - side view of same bird. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a Red-billed Firefinch, but I do not know what else looks like this, and I am not certain partly because the images are blurred. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Little Pied Cormorant. Maias (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Microcarbo melanoleucos -Melbourne Zoo, Australia-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

New Colombian antpitta

Just a small note if people missed it: Some may remember a brief comment of mine on the new Colombian antpitta some time ago (the XC comment I referred to was Krabbe's from 2010-05-22 here). A bit more has now been published here and here. I won't have the time in any near future, but adding some info from the new publications would bring a bit more balance into the otherwise excellent wiki article for the species. For people not familiar with the ICZN, note that the Code of Ethics is a recommendation rather than a requirement, i.e. regardless of it having been breached or not, the first published scientific name G. fenwickorum stands with the newer G. urraoensis being a synonym (though what English name will become the primary can only be guessed at this point, i.e. this is one case where it might be recommended moving the wiki article to the scientific name pending the decision on use of English name by SACC or other authorities). • Rabo³ • 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the eloquent synopsis, and I hope editors will be interested enough to amend the wiki article that refer to. I guess that the wiki article could be called "Newly discovered antpitta in Colombia", which a temporary English name for the page. If you do get a few spare minutes while you are busy, I hope that you will continue to make contributions to the wiki including helping us with bird identifications. Snowman (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, including for satisfying my curiosity about the post at xeno-canto. I'm working on a section for the article on the controversy. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

IUCN map reliability

My confidence of IUCN maps has generally been high, but today I noticed a map on commons which was rather incorrect File:Breeding area of Sypheotides indicus.jpg and it turned out that the problem was really in the original source - not sure if this kind of error is more widespread. Shyamal (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The footnote at the bottom of the IUCN page says; "If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided". Snowman (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This could be a bigger problem than expected as there is a plan to get more of these maps into commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IUCN_red_list As for giving feedback on these websites, my experience with these large organization websites is that they do not respond. At least BirdLife International is not known to, although personal contacts do help. Shyamal (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on what sources do you say that the map is incorrect? The problem is that compiling distribution maps from several sources is a kind of original research. Of course, if there is a map from a reliable source that is more accurate than the IUCN ones, that should be used, but to say that getting 25000 distribution maps based on a reliable secondary source and in a single go (or almost) is a problem, instead of painstakingly drawing it by hand, and most of the times, not even acknowledging or mentioning any source, I think is a kind of a stretch. As for personal contact with IUCN, I have been in correspondence with them for several months now to set up this partnership, and they have been very open and reachable, so I am sure if you send them an email citing the appropriate sources and explaining how the map is inaccurate, they will do their best to correct their maps. GoEThe (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we are usually very concerned about original research with graphics: think of user-created photographs. I don't think it would be possible to create a detailed map for many species, such as the Desert Sparrow, without consulting and comparing multiple sources. —innotata 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The distribution map for the desert sparrow cites the source for the drawing of the map. Maybe it is incomplete, but how can we tell, if other sources are not presented? User-created photographs or even composites of several pictures are not original research for sure, but I am not convinced that compiling maps based on several descriptions of the taxa is not, but it certainly is if you are using own observations or a compilation of individual observations (amateur or professional). GoEThe (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as the Desert Sparrow is concerned, the current map lacks any real detail, and it is based on a fairly old source (Clement, as Shyamal noted while uploading the latest version, not Kirwan). In order to create an accurate map of this species, I will need to consult several sources, some of which only have lists of localities. I prefer maps to be drawn off multiple sources; I can easily see how using one of two particular sources would make a less accurate map than one using both. —innotata 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I was thinking about it some more, and I agree that if both sources are reliable, complimentary and of a secondary or tertiary nature, combining their data on a single map is not original research. I still find it a bit dubious if the two or more sources are conflicting (for example, if an old reference states that a species is locally extinct, a newer one says it was never extinct from there, and the newest says that it was extinct there after all, or any combination of this kind). But still, as before, maps will be in Creative Commons, and additions, fixes can be added to it, if based on reliable sources. The IUCN maps will not necessarily substitute existing maps, but they will be a great addition to species pages without maps. GoEThe (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the distribution of Great Hornbill shown in http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/142001/0 accurate? There is an IP editor on Great Hornbill who thinks the map (which has been redone into File:BucerosBicornisMap.svg) is incorrect and should include Sarawak in its range. Shyamal (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit to the article; Great Hornbill does not occur in Sarawak. Maias (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the claim that it was the state bird of Sarawak also appeared to refer to Rhinoceros Hornbill. Shyamal (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:IUCN2010

I'm currently working on an upgrade for {{IUCN2010}}. You can see a comparison between the current and sandbox versions at Template:IUCN2010/testcases. The output of the sandbox version conforms with that of {{cite web}} as that is a generally accepted format (although no standard exists). The outputs are nearly identical. The current template complains if any parameter value is not supplied. The sandbox version is capable of some error checking and I'd like some input on what parameter values are required and which should be optional. I expect they are all required with the possible exception of the downloaded date (I assume downloaded is synonymous with accessdate).

The Willow Flycatcher page on IUCN is here. I'm wondering if the version mentioned in the template refers to 2010.2 or ver 3.1. I've noticed some confusion on different pages. I can do some error checking on this in the template and put pages with the wrong information in a tracking category.  –droll [chat] 20:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you scrape the IUCN webpages and put the citations on bird wiki articles correct. Probably thousands of these citations on bird pages have not been updated since the IUCN pages migrated about a year or two ago. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I can easily identify articles that use the older templates using AWB but updating them robotically is beyond my capability. I think it can be done and if there is support for the idea I know of some folks who might help out.  –droll [chat] 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life as it effects a broader constituancy than this project. I will cut and paste everything above this comment.  –droll [chat] 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Andean Condor

Talk:Andean_Condor#Wrong_Map might need some action. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How cool is this??

This for the longevity of Australian birds etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (85)

White-crowned Robin-chat (with the feathers from its lower back all fluffed up over its wings); the only other robin-chat with a white crown is Snowy-crowned Robin-chat, and that one would have an orange collar as well as an orange lower back and rump. MeegsC | Talk 14:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
There might be another explanation for the brown on its back. There are three subspecies according to zoonomen.net. Perhaps the brown on its back is a characteristic of one of the subspecies. It looks like this bird at Columbus Zoo, which has apparently has two of the female White-crowned Robin-chat nominates (and one female Snowy-crowned Robin-chat). Snowman (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cossypha albicapilla -London Zoo, England-8a.jpg on commons. More comments on the brown feather colours on its back welcome. Snowman (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, according to my book, all three of the subspecies have that orange/brown on the lower back, so that alone wouldn't help to distinguish subspecies. MeegsC | Talk 15:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I should have said lighter brown zone on wings. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Maias (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The next one (presumably same bird) in the flickr photo-set selected for the species page. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Juvenile Gambel's Quail with adult in background. (See Nat Geo Field Guide to the Birds of North America for a picture of the youngsters). MeegsC | Talk 12:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Callipepla gambelii -Tucson, Arizona, USA -male and four juveniles-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Lappet-faced Vultures. MeegsC | Talk 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Torgos tracheliotos -Denver Zoo, Colorado, USA-8a.jpg on commons. The binomial is spelt Torgos tracheliotos on the wiki and Torgos tracheliotus on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
According to the IUCN Red Data list, it's Torgos tracheliotos. MeegsC | Talk 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Birdlife says T. tracheliotus is a synonym for T. tracheliotos.  –droll [chat] 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Synonym added to taxobox on species page to reduce confusion. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. MeegsC | Talk 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Little Egret. Maias (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No changes needed to the file on commons, but the author's caption on flickr is wrong. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a juvenile Tengmalm's Owl; juvs are darker than adults, with chocolate faces. MeegsC | Talk 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can find out, Innsbruck Zoo also have Eurasian Pygmy-owls, but no other owls that are similar. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Aegolius funereus -Innsbruck Zoo, Austria -juvenile-8a.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep. An adult. MeegsC | Talk 13:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This one's okay too. MeegsC | Talk 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Antpitta move

As suggested by Rabo3, I just proposed temporarily moving Fenwick's Antpitta to Grallaria fenwickorum. Please comment if you're interested. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is is OK as it is for now providing the redirects are adequate and the introduction include what User Rabo3 explained. It seems to me to go against the WP Bird guidelines to have a species page name that is the binomial. When a common name becomes more established, then the page name can be reviewed. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The move to the scientific name sounds like a good one, given the serious controversy developing around its common name. This is not an "our country calls it this, your country calls it that" sort of controversy, and I don't think Wikipedia should be taking "sides", which is (in effect) what we're doing by keeping it at the common name we are. Our project guidelines say Sometimes exceptions need to be made; some individual creatures (usually newly discovered ones) do not yet have a formal common name, which certainly gives room for maneuver on occasions such as this. MeegsC | Talk 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I had not realised that there was also a discussion at Talk:Fenwick's Antpitta, in addition to the discussion in a section above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#New_Colombian_antpitta. It is confusing having synchronous discussions at different places. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "Please comment at the discussion page if you're interested. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (86)

I think the correction is right, the bill is thinker and there is more white on the head than you would expect for a Elegant Tern, so Royal it is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Rename of Royal Tern under way to File:Thalasseus maximus -Morro Bay, California, USA -flying-8.jpg, and image removed from infobox of Elegant Tern species page. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirm Least Tern. Adult in breeding colours. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Sternula antillarum -St Augustine, Florida, USA -parent and chick-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not a pygmy-owl; it's one of the screech-owls (Western or Whiskered Screech-owl, probably (based on the size of the feet and the relative lack of barring) a Western. MeegsC | Talk 01:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oriental Pied Hornbill. Maias (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anthracoceros albirostris -Kuala Lumpur Bird Park, Malaysia-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. Adult female—no dark malar, unlike adult male; full-size bill and white rather than buffy wing spots (as far as I can tell), unlike juvenile. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
"adult female" added to image description on commons, without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. Adult male (red and yellow bill). That's some beetle! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it's very hard to distinguish between the Steppe Eagle (as the photographer stated) and the Tawny Eagle. The Steppe Eagle's bright yellow gape flange extends to a point under the rear edge of the eye and the Tawny's only to a point under the middle of the eye. Based on that, I'd lean toward Tawny, but it evidently depends on the angle of the head and what exactly the gape flange is and stuff. Maybe someone else will be able to tell. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. That'll be a good one for the article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Great Horned Owls uploaded to File:Bubo virginianus -near Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Oregan, USA -juvenile-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bird web cams

Considering their short life span and purpose ('watch the cute babies grow up...'), are bird web cams ever acceptable as external links? If so, when? I'm thinking of this one[1] right now, but it's not the only one I've seen recently. First Light (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think not. The people who add them never come back to take them off, once the camera is switched off. And once one is added, it opens the door for dozens of others on the same page (particularly for iconic species like Osprey, Peregrine, Bald Eagle, etc.). MeegsC | Talk 13:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
We could be a bit liberal with sites that have a directory of nest webcams like this http://www.peregrine-foundation.ca/webcams.html and have a hidden text to any potential web-cam linkers to contribute their site to specific directories already listed. Shyamal (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
They add little in terms of encyclopaedic value, and aren't maintained, I'm happy with Shyamal's exception, otherwise chop them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
So, Shyamal's example is a Canadian directory site. Are we also willing to have a US directory site and a UK directory site and a German directory site, and a French directory site and a ...? And if not, are we violating some "rule" which says all countries should get equal access? Where do we draw the line? MeegsC | Talk 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is tricky to think of it as a rule, I guess it should finally be judged on a case to case basis, just like many of us will usually but not always remove links to personal sites with pretty pictures with the preference towards the inclusion of something like the Internet Bird Collection. PS: I am fine with a no-nest-web-cam rule but one could still think of exceptions in the future like a remotely-operated-cam-in-the-woods for folks to spot any elusive Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. (not online though) Shyamal (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like leaving a webcam link in an article requires an exceptionally good reason, then, and there don't seem to be too many of those.... First Light (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (87)

Pied Heron. Maias (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Egretta picata.jpg —innotata 15:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Already uploaded as File:Hawk eating prey.jpg where it is identified as a Red-tailed Hawk. Melburnian (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Aha. I forgot to look at the description, and while noticing it looked like a Red-tailed Hawk, I assumed it was a German photo, and that it had probably not been uploaded. —innotata 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Black-faced Ibis. Maias (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Theristicus melanopis Ushuaia.jpg —innotata 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Blue Crane. Maias (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anthropoides paradiseus head.jpg. —innotata 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Wattled Jacana. Maias (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded as File:Jacana jacana Krefelder Zoo.jpg. —innotata 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Burrowing Owl --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Page moves

Administrator assistance requested to move pages to IOC names:

Okay. Will do that for you now... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
On Avibase it seems that all Magpie-jays are Calocitta and vice versa. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved Calocitta to Magpie-Jays now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I would have guessed "magpie-jays", because common names for collective bird terms are not usually capitalized. This would make the page name "Magpie-jays". Snowman (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Duh, my bad - fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Madeira Firecrest

Given that it's quite short, I'm thinking of taking Madeira Firecrest straight to FAC. Any copyediting, comments or additional information would be welcome. I can't find any more than what's in the article. The fact that this is a recent split suggests that it hasn't been well studied in its own right. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not looking too bad at first glance. I will try and take a further look later today but am getting sidetracked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Much better than I could have done; nevertheless, I expect GAR or FAR will spark some unforeseen improvements. While copy editing the article, I made some comments and asked some questions in edit summaries. If you have someone interested in reviewing at GA, you might think of going for a GA first. If not, then go for FA. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Waterfowl reference

  • Johnsgard, Paul A (2010). Ducks, Geese, and Swans of the World (PDF). University of Nebraska Press.

48.3 MB single download or as separate chapters Shyamal (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The University of Nebraska is putting some useful books online! I wonder how many more of Johnsgard's will be added. —innotata 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Chanaka L sent me a link to Legge's A History of the Birds of Ceylon, nice pics, and a second page linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Have uploaded some images to commons:Category:A_History_of_the_Birds_of_Ceylon Shyamal (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Madeira

I recently had a short break on Madeira — only a few target birds, but all Madeiran/Macaronesian endemics. That inspired me to start working up Madeira Firecrest. Since this is a recent but well-supported split, I'm fine on description and taxonomy, but struggling on some other data. Can anyone help with population (a non-RS source says about 10000), and breeding details (clutch size, incubation, fledging)? I assume the latter are the same as Firecrest, but it would be nice to confirm that, since the eggs apparently are quite different according to Simms.

I was wondering about an FT staring from this. Regulus is too large, and I don't have good sources for the NAm and Asian species, "Firecrests" is too artificial, so I wondered about "Endemic birds of Madeira". I have good sources for Trocaz Pigeon and Zino's Petrel, but they don't have a species image. If I went ahead anyway, what would go in the lead article? I was thinking

  • why Atlantic volcanic islands have endemicity
  • Macaronesian endemic species and subspecies
  • the specifically Madeiran trio

Any comments, please?

The book by David and Mary Bannerman, The Birds of the Atlantic Islands, Volume 2: History of the birds of Madeira, the Desertas, and Porto Santo Islands (1965), should have some information - even if a bit dated. Maias (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank, I'll see if I can get it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think there is also an endemic bat (or perhaps several) on Madeira; I'd be willing to work on that to broaden the topic a bit. Ucucha 11:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Madeira Pipistrelle I think occurs on the Canaries as well, unless it's been split. AFAIK, the only non-avian vertebrate true endemic is the Madeiran Wall Lizard, so it's certainly possible to expand to endemic vertebrates rather than just birds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It hasn't been. OK, so there are no endemic Madeiran mammals (though there are several other Macaronesian endemics), and I guess my offer is unnecessary. Ucucha 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It was a kind thought though. Macaronesian endemic vertebrates (or even birds) would be a big topic, especially with the seabird splits (Macaronesian/Boyd's Shearwaters, Fea's/Desertas Petrels) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems that WP's bird editors are natural splitters. Madeira Firecrest uses past tense "was classified as a subspecies" while recent updates on several respected lists still maintain it as a subspecies. Shouldn't this sort of article recognise the amibiguity of the taxon? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you give linked examples, please? Recent publications, like the new edition of the Collins guide split, whereas my older books like BWP don't. If I am to say there is currently still disagreement, I need to be able to quote peer-reviewed journals or recent books to support that. i assume we are not just talking Avibase here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 10:26, 20 July 2010
Well, the latest Clements checklist, now being maintained by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and released in Dec. 2009 (version 6.4), for one. MeegsC | Talk 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

eBird

It might interest some of you to know that the Cornell Lab run eBird has recently gone world-wide. eBird is a citizen science website that allows birders and naturalists to log their bird sightings online, with the eventual goal of scientists using that data. Check it out (and log your birds) at eBird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Very good to hear about this. I have just registered myself and have written to them with an offer to contribute about 50000 geo/temporal/source/referenced data points from an old personal project. Shyamal (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be great to combine those observations. I hope EBird gets back to you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mislabeled photo

File:Loon,_red-throated_04-24_a.jpg - This file is mislabeled. It's actually a Common Loon in non-breeding plumage. The bill is far too heavy for a Red-throated, the doubled white spots on the back are all wrong for Red-throated, and Red-throats never show a white collar that reaches the back of the neck. Can someone with whatever rights are needed please get this one renamed? Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, moved to File:Loon, common 04-24 a.jpg Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Move requested

Alphabetical list of pigeon breeds was moved to List of pigeon breeds, but the associated talk page wasn't — presumably because some sort of merge will be needed. Can an admin please sort this out? MeegsC | Talk 13:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The situation is a bit more complex than that. In March 2008, Dysmorodrepanis apparently moved List of pigeon breeds to Alphabetical list of pigeon breeds, and then created another list at List of pigeon breeds. A few months later, someone redirected "Alphabetical list" to "List". Meanwhile, talk messages were added to both pages. There might be something to do for an admin here, but I'm not sure what. Ucucha 13:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
So, can this not be done? Right now, we've got two different talk pages for the same article. This doesn't seem to me to be a good idea! MeegsC | Talk 00:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Merged. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Kim. MeegsC | Talk 03:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (88)

Nope. Juveniles would have grey bills and gular pouches (according to HBW). Adults in summer plumage (held June through August, according to the Sibley Guide to North American Birds) have brownish heads. Note that this is not breeding plumage, which is held from February through June. MeegsC | Talk 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Yellow-billed Pintail to me. If so, one would think it is the subspecies A. g. spinicauda, which is the taxon occurring in Brazil. It would be nice if someone can confirm that, as I believe all the pictures we have are of the nominate subspecies. Maias (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anas georgica -Curitiba Zoo, Parana, Brazil-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly a Chilean Pintail. —innotata 19:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maias (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
female. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
"female" added to commons image description. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Going by the reported location of the photograph - yes. Maias (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Rosy-faced Lovebird (Agapornis roseicollis). Snowman (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The file has been uploaded to commons with the name File:Agapornis roseicollis -pet in Hawaii, USA-8a.jpg. Please note that here the person making a request for identification should insure that the file tidy up work is completed. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The title is wrong; these are Steller's Sea Eagles. MeegsC | Talk 00:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I find it helpful to have a second opinion, when the uploader gives a different identification. Rename under way on commons to File:Haliaeetus pelagicus -Warsaw Zoo, Poland-8a.jpg. The file is not used on any language wikis. Snowman (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the uploader requested deletion of the file, so the file has disappeared. I plan to see about un-deletion. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Crested Coua, which is the only one with the fluffy crest. MeegsC | Talk 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Coua cristata -Toledo Zoo, Ohio, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Spur-winged Plovers. MeegsC | Talk 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Vanellus spinosus -Toledo Zoo, Ohio, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... Given that white throat and grey face and chest, I'd have called that a Grey-cheeked Grass-finch (Emberizoides ypiranganus). MeegsC | Talk 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's E. herbicola (cheeks, lores, tertials, mantle). The photo was taken in south-eastern Brazil. Important because the northern and southern birds are quite different. I'm not sure about the copyright rules for uploading videos to wiki but the same person has also uploaded two videos of the species on flickr ([2] and [3]). Nice because they include the distinctive song which is totally different than the song if E. ypiranganus. • Rabo³ • 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Are there two subspecies? Or is the picture in the new van Perlo guide particularly bad? E. herbicola in that book looks totally different, with no white throat and no grey at all on the face! MeegsC | Talk 01:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
There are 6 subspecies and that's without counting duidae (to my knowledge there is still no living birder or ornithologist that has seen it because of its remote range, meaning that the voice and exact ecology remain unknown and presumed elevational parapatry with E. h. sphenurus is based on very little data. The status as a species is only supported by this). In terms of plumage visible under normal field conditions the variations within subspecies of E. herbicola match that between the subspecies. There are differences in the colours of the subspecies but truly significant differences like measurements and voice are not detectable on a photo. In the main subspecies in Brazil (E. h. herbicola) most individuals have a greyer face than shown in the van Berlo guide but some only have a faint grey tinge as shown and some have none at all. There are also variations in the colour of the throat, ranging from white to buff (males average more grey-faced and white-throated than females). You can compare the face and throat of the bird on the initial photo, this and this. All three are adult E. h. herbicola. Juveniles have quite bright yellow throats. To my knowledge the variations in face and throat are not mentioned in any existing guide. The same can be said about the variation in strength and amount of dark streaking above. The quoted grey face versus white throat is a standard feature that can be found in pretty much all guides covering E. ypiranganus (a species showing far less phenotypic variation than the overlapping E. h. herbicola, though sharing the yellow-throated juvenile). Although that feature is of use, it and all other visible features should be used with care in this species pair. IMO no one without a reasonable level of experiance in them should feel completely confident separating them by anything but voice, though keeping in mind that most of the range of E. herbicola is beyond that of E. ypiranganus. • Rabo³ • 04:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! That's very helpful. MeegsC | Talk 12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wedge-tailed Grass-finch still image uploaded to commons. Two video files converted to ogv format, which is accepted on commons, and video sound files uploaded to File:Emberizoides herbicola -Ambiental Reserve, Piraju, Brasil-8a.ogv and File:Emberizoides herbicola -Ambiental Reserve, Piraju, Brasil-8a (1).ogv. First images of the species on the wiki. In appreciation of Dario's photography and for erudite comments here. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I will be grateful, if anyone, who is certain of the subspecies identification, would add the subspecies to the image descriptions on commons. Do males and females sing? Snowman (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Both genders sing, though all this media quite certainly involve a male. No reason to rename the files just for this, however "Ambiental" is not a name for a specific reserve, but rather a general term. Ambiental = Environmental, i.e. Reserva Ambiental ≈ Nature Reserve. • Rabo³ • 05:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Video files now at File:Emberizoides herbicola -Piraju, Brasil -nature reserve-8a.ogv and File:Emberizoides herbicola -Piraju, Brasil -nature reserve-8a (1).ogv. The still image is at File:Emberizoides herbicola -Piraju, Brasil -nature reserve-8a.jpg
I am pretty sure the ID is correct. I do not have a good illustration of the of the Hainan P-p, but I strongly doubt that it would be that species. Maias (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox on species page replacing an illustration. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

A couple of queries about the etymology of Zino's Petrel's binomial and Portuguese names. I know the ptero of Pterodroma means wing, no idea with second bit. If anyone knows the etymology, a ref would be great. Freira is Portuguese for "nun", does anyone have a more WP:RS source for the origin of that name than this? thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wing runner" or "Winged runner" pteron for wing and dromos for race or running - per p. 171 Dictionary of birds of the United States: scientific and common names by Joel Ellis Holloway published by Timber Press, 2003 isbn 0881926000 if Google book links work it was on http://books.google.com/books?id=O07_W9NF39MC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false Shyamal (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more new taxo-phylo stuff

G.C.Gibb has dome some nice thesis work (see here for the intro). The rest's probably also around somewhere, but I have not located it. Some interesting remarks concerning phylogeny: yes, it seems the shorebirds are a branch apart from the "P&C" group ("Pelecaniformes" and "Ciconiiformes"), yes, the Tropicbirds are not part of the latter (as it seems, they are between them and the shorebirds). I found the "may not be monophyletic" as regards the "Falconiformes" interesting - that's how I would put it too, while the general opinion has been far less equivocal. In any case, part of it has been published (doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.04.016), and boy, is this interesting. Now, I wouldn't put too high emphasis on the root - a ML support <70% is nothing to rely upon, meaning simply that Columbiformes are too far away even from sandgrouse to safely use anything to root them. But overall, all points towards Columbiformes being very old - or very odd. Perhaps the latter, given that an Antarctic origin around the K-Pg boundary would a) beg the question why sandgrouse are western Palearctic and apparently have always been (or did they go extinct in southern Africa in prehistoric times?), and require a very large ghost fossil record. In any case, in this study (a comparison of whole mt-genomes) falcons get drawn to Columbiformes... even though not at the best of supports, and closer even than sandgrouse, they still staunchly refused to clade with parrots (which clade with woodpeckers; too bad that there's no passerine, but it's probably safe to say it would have been part of the latter group). Basically, this buries yet another of the theories of Hackett et al. (2008). Unfortunately, Gibb did have no eagle, stork, heron or crane in the analysis; that would have been the ultimate test.

What are we left with? Well, paleognaths (Tinamous evolved from flightless ancestors? Every paloentologist I have heard on that laughed so hard they almost wet their pants. The flight apparatus devolves very rapidly if it's unused; the energetic benefit is simply enormous, and there is nothing to indicate that flightlessness is anything but a one-way road). Then Galloanseres of course, and within Neoaves "Charadriimorphae" as some call them, then tropicbirds and the "P&C" group. That may not be a clade, because the "funny" Neoaves need to originate from somewhere - pigeons&sandgrouse, cuckoos&turacos, "Falconiformes", "Gruiformes", Mirandornithes, Cypselomorphae, owls. Basically the "higher higher waterbirds" and the "lower higher landbirds", whose origin the fossil record (see Mayr, 2009) oh so conveniently happens to place at quite exactly the end of the Mesozoic. Then we have the "near passerines" - passerines themselves of course, and Piciformes, "Coraciiformes", Psittaciformes as it seems, and presumably also Trogoniformes and/or Coliiformes - a strong clade candidate that happens to have "funny feet" (toes, really), which may indeed be the key to their radiation (and success).

The relevant point for Wikipedia is that the IOC classification looks like it'll soon turn out to be an even bigger embarrassment than Sibley-Ahlquist (which was never widely adopted). The problem is that the IOC placed blind trust in the Science paper of Hackett et al., and by now we know for a fact that the beta-fibrinogen sequence cannot be trusted to deliver a reliable phylogenetic signal, and it looks like it delivers a strong but highly misleading signal... the "Coronaves"-"Metaves" split is rejected in all recent papers I've seen.

What I can say is that the cormorant genus limits in the IOC classification are a joke, and not a good one at that. Three "genera", one of which (Phalacrocorax) is massively paraphyletic? Either one cormorant genus is recognized, or a whole fricking lot. One wonders if they did read this - three genera are not completely impossible, but still a very awkward solution, since they would be Microcarbo, Phalacrocorax and Poikilocarbo as it seems... because the data does not well justify splitting the first without splitting the third. The minimum number of cormorant genera that can include Leukocarbo as they delimit it would be no less than 5.

And there's another thing... "Suliformes". Orders are not ICZN-regulated, but Christidis & Boles' (2008) Phalacrocoraciformes pre-dates the IOC list v.2.0 (2009) Suliformes. Or perhaps not "but", but rather "and that is the problem here, because". It is bad enough that the IOC list puts undue trust in a paper whose key findings were already refuted practically as soon as it was published. To have it brush aside a previously-established taxon to dump in their new one (and their systematic layout of the "P&C" reeks... pelicans in an order with ibises and herons to the exclusion of storks?!) adds insult to injury. Christidis & Boles even discussed the case, and they are simply ignored by the IOC. What gives?! Makes me wonder whether it's deliberate.

My advice: dump the IOC list. However "official" it may be, major parts of it are refuted by the last two years' worth of research, due their giving undue weight to a single study that was as high-profile as it was wrong. Plus, if their treatment of Christidis & Boles constitutes scientific misconduct (which may well be so), it should not be supported or passed on to the public.

At present, there seems to me no good alternative to working with the secondary literature, and disregard any tertiary-source lists, no matter who makes them and who adopts them. These lists take too long to build, meaning they are usually already obsolete when they are published. We're better off working with the secondary literature only, at least for a few more years. Because that way, we can accomodate new research as it is published. Using any of the lists presently available, we cannot cite a lot of the last two years' worth of secondary sources, and tertiary sources should never stand in the way of secondary ones.

There has also been a bit of minor work - mainly Passeriformes stuff, published in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, as usual - but at present, there's a bit of a lull again as researchers finish their studies and write them up (2011 will see another wave of new papers coming out). Besides, the framework we have has proven excellent, and what is now being researched regarding Passeriformes is mainly clean-up work, clarifying family/genus boundaries etc. Nobody really wants to do a genus-level revision of Nectariniidae of course, meaning we're stuck with things like the biogeographically hair-raising placement of the violet-backed complex with Anthreptes (type species: Brown-throated Sunbird...). I've played around a bit with the data, just for fun, and I can only say: brace yourself for the resurrection of genera that were considered forgotten... Helionympha, anyone? (the violet-backs are fair and square Hedydipna, as far as I can tell, or Lamprothreptes if you're in a splitting mood) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The en wiki only uses the English names that the IOC generate, and not their taxonomy. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • While the front page clearly states that the IOC list is for common names only, I have noticed (and reverted) a few examples where people have changed taxonomy based solely on IOC and where evidence for the change was questionable. Consequently, I have been bold and made a small modification to the frontpage. It is somewhat repetitive, but should make it even clearer. If anyone disagree or think the wording is problematic, feel free to revert. • Rabo³ • 18:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • To me your modifications are much clearer. I think that your amendment would be approved by the Plain English Campaign. Snowman (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I concur with Rabo and Snowman; Rabo's changes make what I thought was established usage clearer. While I'm thinking about it, Dys, what do you think of Irestedt et al 2006's three way split of the genus Pitta? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
          • You mean this? Well, it a) makes sense biogeographically and morphologically too (check out belly color bearing in mind that beige may be dilute phaeomelanin and green = yellow+blue), b) the support values are good, and c) the only major divergence from the HBW linear sequence is Erythropitta. But looking at distribution and morphology from the molecular perspective, that, too, seems to be good: all Erythropitta have or tend towards the combination of extensive red on belly, breastband with blue structural color (sometimes +yellow pigment), extensive dark blue in wings, green on back. Only the last trait is widespread in the other two. To me, it looks like a very good solution. Also, their ranges represent an east-northeastweard expansion from the presumed center of origin (the Cambodia-Thailand region). The somewhat weaker support for Erythropitta is apparently due to the deep divergence between its two lineages ("murky-headed" and "blue postocular stripe"). One may be puzzled by the basal position of the African branch in Pitta sensu stricto, but given that support is robust and the next-youngest lineage is Indian Pitta, it seems perfectly alright. I can, in short, see at a quick glance nothing about it that is in any way weird or "deserves further study". (But from these authors, this does not come as a surprise.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Review of B-class articles

Maias and I have gone through all the B-class articles, many of which had been rated before the widespread acceptance of inline referencing and C-class rating. Hopefully what we have now are B-class articles which are not far off GA nomination - i.e. fairly complete and well-referenced - their main issues might be trawling for new papers, minor formatting and copyediting. The C-class ones generally have a substantial portion lacking inline referencing or little coverage of some aspect (usually behaivour from what I've seen). Anyway, hope this helps navigation. Some start articles might be C as well but there are alot to review...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Old name

Visionholder and I are currently working on an overview of the subfossil faunas of Madagascar. In an old source, I came across the species "Platalea tenuirostris", which is apparently no longer recognized, but I haven't been able to find the current ID. The Check-list of Birds of the World (vol. 1, 1930) doesn't list it either. Ucucha 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And now I'm here anyway... He also lists a species of the accipitrid genus Astur, which apparently contained a species hensti Schlegel. Ucucha 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Platalea alba and Accipiter henstii (irrelevant for the question, but Astur has been in use for more species). • Rabo³ • 20:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think what you say is irrelevant, since he only says it "probably belongs to the genus Astur", and is the size of A. hensti. I think I'll just put in "Accipitridae sp.". Ucucha 08:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Coscoroba Swan

There is discussion on Talk:Coscoroba Swan which may lead to amendments to the article about the Coscoroba Swan's relation to other swans. Snowman (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AOU check-list

The new supplement to the AOU North American check-list is out, as is the updated check-list, and there are some significant changes, such as separate Accipitriformes (including Cathartidae), separate Suliformes and Phaethontiformes, and herons and ibises moved to Pelecaniformes. (How the mighty Ciconiiformes has fallen! It's nothing now but storks.) I'll leave it to others to decide how seriously we should take this in our taxonomy, but we at least need to keep our discussions of different authorities up to date.

The poor Wrentit (now in Sylviidae) is probably so confused it will start flying across rivers. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh blah...and the ongoing Phalacrocoraciformes vs Suliformes armwrestle will continue... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoon-billed Sandpiper

One of the best birds I've ever seen, but down to the last 200-odd pairs, and likely to be extinct within the next 10-20 years according to this month's British Birds. A guy on one of the bird forums posted this link For HD, change the settings to 720p by clicking the button at the lower right corner of the frame. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been making the rounds - to make everyone drool over the Canon EOS 500D! Shyamal (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Old illustrations

Just came across this site with an collection of interesting old natural history illustrations - http://www.valerie-chansigaud.fr/index.php/histoire-de-l-illustration-naturaliste/galeries - hopefully, most of it is already on the wikimedia commons as the site owner is fr:User:Valérie75 who has recently published a book on the history of ornithology - http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9141.html Shyamal (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not all of it is on Wikimedia Commons, or is there in lower resolution. Chansigaud's site does not allow images to be downloaded as far as I can tell, and it seems like Chansigaud or the publishers Delachaux et Niestlé do not want those versions of the illustrations to be used freely—the site is released as cc-by-nc. —innotata 14:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the sources now seem to be on the Biodiversity Heritage Library / Internet Archive - I have just extracted images (only those that are PD, which excludes plates by P. Smit) from volumes 1 to 20 (of 27) of the British Museum Catalogues and have placed them with just the old names - commons:Category:Catalogue_of_the_Birds_in_the_British_Museum Shyamal (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Firefox's DownloadHelper extension will download all the pictures in a slideshow presentation, like Chansigaud's site, in one go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What a great resource! Maias (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The images by Pierre Jacques Smit can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, which only follows US copyright, and tagged with Template:PD-US-1923-abroad; especially if illustrations of a species are hard to find, we may want to do this. —innotata 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The chromolithographs are signed as "Peter Smit" and I am unable to trace the lifespan of the artist. Shyamal (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Peter Smit" just be an anglicised form of "Pierre Jacques Smit"? Maias (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Joseph Smit gives that name and there is some support of the dates here but I cannot quite see how this Dutch family took on a French name and (if so) why the artist should sign with his English name (just because it was for a British Museum publication ?! ) Perhaps there is something in the book cited - Jackson, Bird Illustrators (1975), pp. 75-84 Shyamal (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you link some examples of works signed as Peter Smit? I think that Maias is probably right, and that there is nothing odd about the names. I've seen some books where "P. Smit" is given and "P. J. Smit" is signed. I think French names are fairly common in the Netherlands, and it appears that "Peter" is an equivalent to Pierre to Dutch, though P. J. Smit probably lived in England for most of his life, like many bird artists at the time. Anyhow, we don't need the author's date of death to upload at the English Wikipedia as I suggested. Besides, as commented here, any artwork commissioned is copyrighted by the commissioner under UK copyright law. —innotata 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
That last thing also means that with any similar illustrations, the author of the work published in should be given. —innotata 17:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There is commons:Category:Pierre Jacques Smit, containing some signed by "Peter Smit"; I'll be checking to see if any images there need to be moved here. —innotata 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Most pictures here are by Peter Smit - http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofbirds18brit#page/n624/mode/1up Shyamal (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Name for infertile eggs?

Is there a proper name a bird's egg that is incubated normally, but does have any obvious signs of embryo development to the naked eye when its interior is examined? Some pages refer to "infertile eggs". Presumably a very small zygote in an egg can fail to grow and die for many reasons after fertilization. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

standardization of species lists?

I'm not sure where to ask this, so I'll try here. Thanks. I do a fair bit of research of birds (and other animals and plants) specific to particular places and I often use Wikipedia when narrowing down species by nonstandard common names. So for me, the most important bit of information about any bird is whether it's anywhere close to my geographic range. I'd imagine this is also fairly important for the average birder. Most common name pages/genus pages, for example Woodcock, have species lists that include only official common and scientific names without any place information, like this:

While the article text makes note of the fact that only a few species aren't endemic to little islands, there is no indicator (save logic) of which those are without opening each page individually. The page would have been enormously more useful to me if it looked something like this:

Is this the result of a concerted plan to keep these lists simple or would my volunteer efforts to add short placenames be appreciated? Thanks. Somerut (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - I often add ranges much like you say above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I once looked on the wiki for the mostly brown partridge common in England, and found a long list of partridges, and eventually I had to look in an illustrated book to find out which one is it. More recently, I often resort to one of the wiki's "List of birds of abcd-land". I think that wiki bird articles of the higher taxa will frequently not help you much for associating species and locations and that the wiki is not very user friendly with respect to this. I think that many lists are simple at present, because 16,000 WP birds articles can not be written rapidly by a small number of editors. I think that your help would be welcome, and, of course, the sort of helpful additions that you suggest would need to be sourced. Some articles have tables to summarise species information with photographs; see Agapornis, Ara (genus), Eos (genus), List of Amazon parrots, List of macaws. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a decent idea. This could get cluttered up, but anything can. Ucucha's rice rat articles frequently have species listed in charts giving a good deal more information, for a non-bird example. —innotata 14:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
"Frequently" is a big word, given that I've written on only one diverse rice rat genus so far. But I do think the table under Oryzomys#Species is a useful example. Ucucha 14:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Frequently was a typo from completely rewriting my comment. Comes of not using "show preview". I think I'll add a chart to Passer as previously discussed here, but with so many species it may be good to keep the images smaller than at Ara. —innotata 14:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, why does the Ara chart need to be in a template? —innotata 14:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It's used in both Ara (genus) and List of macaws. Putting this in a template means that if information changes (species moved to different genus, better photo uploaded, etc.), it only has to be changed in one place, and both articles are updated. Otherwise, someone has to remember to update both articles. It's standard programming procedure to put something like that into a template to decrease the chance that material in one place gets overlooked and becomes out of date by default. MeegsC | Talk 15:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it useful to have a template as the single input for making changes to a complex table that is shown on more than one page. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that including an image in summary tables improves usability. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Now I see why the list was in a template. What was your last comment about, Snowmanradio? —innotata 17:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Nuthatch has a table with smaller images. The table for the Amazon parrots has its own page at List of Amazon parrots, because the genus table with over 30 species would be rather long for the genus article. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Images are great, but work better in smaller taxa (or taxa with few species). For example, List of antbirds would be way too large if every species had an image. Which leads onto the other problem, we don't have images of enough species to make it work every time anyway. But if all the images can be found I agree it looks great. With regard to the initial suggestion; I certainly see no problem with adding the information, but I don't think it should be compulsory or standardised. It doesn't need doing every time (particularly in really small taxa where the ranges of all species are adequately described in the text). And I'm against making anything a requirement (rule creep). With regard to Snowman's point about making a bird ID using Wikipedia, I don't think that is a function we can really serve. I have birding encyclopaedias and I have bird ID guides, but they are not the same thing. We can certainly help in the most common examples (for example maybe having a link to House Sparrow very prominently in the lead to Sparrow); but we cannot be an ID guide if the user doesn't know where to start. That would actually be something we could do in Wikibooks though, and would be a worthwhile project. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I need to learn how to use the watchlist feature, not being a particularly regular contributor. Thank you for all the fast, constructive feedback. I like the picture-tables, but don't feel like I have the bird knowledge to pick type photos or summarize the descriptions aptly. So, if I were to add short range descriptors only, do you think it would be worthwhile to convert these to tables or keep them as lists? I'm really only wanting to commit time to changing things as I run across them, not in any systematic way, so list-style is easier. Thank you all. Somerut (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that generally tables are made where there is a lot of information, so they are usually good and worth keeping. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Prairie wren"

Resolved
 – let's go for the House Wren

Has anyone heard of a "Prairie wren" ? ... all I could find online was a drawing where someone labeled it that way. Should be something that lives in the Southwestern United States... I have the name in Navajo, but can't find it here on en.wiki. --- alternate names? Latin name? No such bird? Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Judging by what the artist said, the picture is probably a somewhat "improvised" Prairie Warbler, which is not found in the Southwest, or on prairies. Confusing "wren" and "warbler" isn't unheard of. (I hope Robert Bly's ears are burning.)
No, I haven't heard of it. Is "prairie wren" a translation of the Navajo name?
The drawing here suggests a House Wren, but who knows whether the illustrator had seen the bird or looked up "wren" in a bird guide? This one (Zuni, not Navajo) could be a Cactus Wren with its tail cocked, or a giant, spotted-breasted Bewick's Wren in the wrong habitat. Both are found here in the Southwest.
I do wish more lexicographers would look up the names of organisms. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that "prairie marsh wren" is an alternative name for (a subspecies of?) the Marsh Wren. Ucucha 05:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the guy who compiled the dictionary gives Latin names for plants, but curiously enough, not for animals. The Navajo name is completely different and suggests that it is fast and makes a certain sound. The Marsh wren has a different name, suggesting it shakes the morning-dew from the grass (Dahtooʼ yinooghałii).
I'll go for the House wren since it's in the children's dic and the editor herself is Navajo... and then I'll go shop for opinions from some older people. Thanks for the hints. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"Fast and makes a certain sound" works for the House Wren (although it would work for plenty of other birds, such as chickadees and Bushtits). I hope it's clear in the Navajo article that the identification isn't certain. (By the way, I know very few words of Navajo, but I like the translation of "least concern" as hózhǫ́.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is ever "certain" in Navajo ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Red-tailed Hawk

Looking at RTH today, it seems to have slipped way below GA standard. I've done my usual slash-and-burn clean-up, removed gallery, OR, unsourced, how-to etc, but it's still suspect - Some refs not formatted, and some don't look RS. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Perisoreus canadensis GJ.jpg

File:Perisoreus canadensis GJ.jpg A Commons FP that looks different than the other gray jays in the article - what's going on here? Is it just puffing up, molting...? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, looks like it is puffed out and has been preening or bathing. Certainly an adult of the Eastern type. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It was raining when I took the picture. The bird is wet. It is a very normal gray jay. --Cephas (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Trocaz

I know that the English and binomial names of Trocaz Pigeon are derived from the local Madeiran Portuguese name for the bird. However, I can't find anything on the origin of that name. It doesn't appear to be a place, and it doesn't seem to mean anything in standard Portuguese. I read something that hinted that it might mean "three-toed", but I'm clutching at straws here. Any ideas? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Heineken does not include the etymology in his original description - http://www.archive.org/stream/edinburghjourna06edingoog#page/n238/mode/1up/ Shyamal (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't "torcaza" mean something like "pigeon" in Spanish? Trocaz may simply have been a term, dialectical, misspelt or distorted over time, for "pigeon". Maias (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That's probably the right track. According to the Portuguese Wikipedia, the Portuguese name for the Wood Pigeon is pombo-torcaz. I'll bet trocaz is a metathesis of that. According to es:Columba_palumbus, the Spanish word torcaz(a), also meaning the Wood Pigeon, comes from Latin torquatus, meaning "collared". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noted that in January this year User:Dysmorodrepanis made Trocaza a redirect to Columba (genus). Maias (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The Portuguese entry goes on to give "pombo-torcaz comum" (Columba palumbus), and "pombo-torcaz-da-madeira" for the extinct Columba palumbus maderensis Wood Pigeon subspecies. These fit with the collar explanation, especially as Ring Dove was an old name for Wood Pigeon. However, it has the endemic species Columba trocaz as "pombo-trocaz" or pombo-da-laurissilva-da-madeira suggesting a clear distinction between "torcaz" and "trocaz", although, as Jerry and Maias say, it could be metathesis, with "trocaz" as an old Madeiran version, and "torcaz" as modern Portuguese. Rabo's redirect arises because the Madeiran species, bizarrely, was the type species for what is now Columba. I think we will struggle to get something WP:RS on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that torcaz, from torquatus, is the older form, and trocaz is a relatively new Madeiran version.
If there's an RS, it might be a comprehensive Portuguese etymological dictionary, so you might be able to get an answer at :pt. You could probably ask in English, unless you learned enough Portuguese on your trip. Or I could probably ask in comprehensible broken Portuguese. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I've posted here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Torcaz" from "Dicionário Houaiss" [4]: "lat.vulg *torquace-, de torques ou torquis, 'colar; coleira'." and from "Dicionário Aulete" [5]: "[F.: Do lat. vulgar *torquace (< lat. torques,is 'colar')]". The word torcaz derive from latim torquace, torques or torquis, that means collared. Trocaz and Torquaz are variants following "Dicionário Michaellis" [6]: "Var: torquaz e trocaz.". Regards Burmeister (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
muito obrigado, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of birds of Cuba/archive1.

About 17 or all of 20 so called featured lists of birds Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Biology has no sufficient inline references, that is necessary requirement for all Wikipedia content. You can delist them all at once.--Snek01 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This somewhat snotty note (given that several of these recently passed) can serve to remind us that we talked about setting up templates for the family introductions on these lists, which would greatly reduce the time needed to set up and maintain the lists. We could easily add references for each family in those, which could then roll out across all lists. Any consensus as to whether or not to proceed with that? MeegsC | Talk 21:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead sections can just be cut-and-pasted for most families from existing articles, but I don't mind either way. Templates have the advantage(?) that any new splits etc can be reflected in all the linked articles at once. Cuba is dead in the water unless someone's prepared to salvage it — no in-line, headings fully capitalised contra MoS. Snek often has an unfortunate way with words, but I don't think Cuba will be the last to go. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good MeegsC - I inlined the ref and might get a chance to look at the rest. Having some general inline refs for family definitions from, say, HBW or something similar would be great to then export. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (90)

Correct. • Rabo³ • 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In all probability the suggested identification is correct, but not really possible to exclude S. griseicapilla. • Rabo³ • 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Should this be uploaded as a White-crested Tyrannulet (Serpophaga subcristata)? Snowman (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If it was entirely up to me I would say no, but if you do upload it as the S. subcristata, no one will be able to prove you wrong. I would perhaps have been more inclined to say yes if this was a real rarity, but it isn't. This is a common species that is easily seen and photographed, and I guess it won't be too long before a photo with greater certainty of the identification is available for wiki. • Rabo³ • 09:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That sounds logical to me. Not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Correct. • Rabo³ • 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anser anser -Loch Katrine, Scotland -three flying-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Eurasian Tree Sparrow—fooled by slim bill. —innotata 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If the picture was taken on Madeira, I think that it would have to be, though I am not personally familiar with the Macaronesian chaffinches. I have just made a stub article for Madeiran Chaffinch for which the image would be ideal. Maias (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it female or male? Snowman (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Male Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Correct. Quote of mine from the top of this page: "Dario Sanches (who took the photo) is getting pretty good with the identifications and I rarely catch him making a mistake anymore. Unless he expressed uncertainty or similar in the identification (in the photo title or the the text below the photo) you can generally trust the identification he indicated." • Rabo³ • 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Shown on species page. First image of its species on the wiki. I am especially cautious with uploads when there are no other examples of the suggested species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Rufous-collared Sparrow on a windy day. • Rabo³ • 09:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Zonotrichia capensis Brunswick Peninsula.jpg. —innotata 17:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Rock Dove --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. The Short-eared Owl and the Barn Owl are the only two owls found on the Galapagos[7], and this bird has the pattern of a Short-eared Owl—you can even see the short "ears" (little feather tufts above the eyes). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rockhopper penguin

I see that the splitters have been at it again. I was looking at bird articles in need of attention and note that Rockhopper penguin states without justification that Eudyptes chrysocome is history and three new species have sprung into being. Is there a WP Birds consensus for dealing with this sort of uber stub? Like I've moaned before re Regulus (ignicapillus) madeirensis, several academic lists still maintain those three taxa are sub-species. I do find it annoying when (assumed, anonymous) authority is given to recent research and the encyclopedia has to follow each new twist and turn. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rockhopper penguin should be disambiguation page rather than an article page. I have now corrected that (it was already listed as a disambiguation page in early 2009, but later the template was removed). Disambiguation pages never have references (WP:DABNOT), as these are left for the article pages they lead to. If checking the article pages (e.g. Northern Rockhopper Penguin), references are provided, though they clearly could use a tweak (evidently the taxonomic section of Northern RP was written with the intention of two, rather than three species). As I remain unconvinced about three instead of two species (following BSC), despite the former being what Banks et al. 2006 recommended, I will leave the tweak of that section to someone else. Alternatively Eastern and Western could be merged and the combined species moved to Southern RP. Regardless, to maintain status quo just for the sake of maintainting status quo is very problematic, especially when directly contradicted by the evidence. Maintaining one species of Rockhopper Penguin would directly contradict published evidence. The question is if we should recognize two or three species. All science, including taxonomy, is (and should be) based on published evidence, which often make academic lists irrelevant, as they commonly provide no evidence for whichever treatment they used. Furthermore, with few exceptions, such lists tend to be very slow at updating and are often years behind. Please see the section Taxonomy and references on our frontpage. • Rabo³ • 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Not wishing to be disruptive but it is not a simple DAB (and thus not requiring cites). It claims that the subspecies of Eudyptes chrysocome are full species even though other academic sources do not recognise them (eg Clements 2009). I don't believe an encyclopedia needs to change until research becomes more widely accepted. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
At least in part, that's because people added further info, notably calling it a species complex (which in any case is questionable). I have now changed the text back to the bacic version I suggested initially more than a year ago (before that it was a somewhat misleading redirect to only one of the species, the Southern RP) with a slight modification to match the 2/3 species issue. If you prefer, you can change it to the even more basic "Rockhopper penguin can refer to three species: [the species]" which would follow the standard wording for DAB's, but I can't see what would be gained by this. Based on the earlier comments, I assume you have not read the papers (DOI:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03028.x, DOI:10.1007/s00300-006-0160-3 and DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02014.x) dealing with the split, but it is well supported, though as said earlier, 2 or 3 species can still be discussed (genetics, morphology, behavior and zoogeography all support 2; the 3rd mainly relies on genetics). It is unclear to me why you believe this should be disregarded, while Clements, which provides no evidence at all for their treatment, should be followed. When we have publications that show a specific treatment is wrong, why should we follow the wrong treatment? Note also that the r. penguin split is widely recognized among sources published/updated after 2007/8 (the two first papers dealing with the taxonomy are from 2006, and due to deadlines such changes usually do not start appearing in books until 1-2 years later). Clements was published in 2007 meaning that it is doubtful they had the chance of including the new info before their deadline, and their later updates have mainly focussed on obvious mistakes (typos and alike) and Neotropical species (unsurprising, as the coordinator is a member of SACC). It is hardly surprising their r. penguin remains unchanged. Among recent sources, the single species approach has been chosen by the minority, not the majority: The review by the taxonomic commitee of BirdLife International has resulted in two species (IUCN follow BirdLife International and consequently also have two), jboyd has two, ARKive has two, worldbirdinfo has three, zoonomen has three, IOC has three, etc. BTW, Clements has always mainly been aimed at birders, while infrequently used by pro's (at academic levels) and not commonly quoted in scientific papers. For that, Howard & Moore, which provides more background info, is the main worldwide source, though it is increasingly outdated (a new edition is being prepared). • Rabo³ • 18:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I know little about the taxonomy of these penguins. I think the page could be written as an article (Stub, Start, C and so on), as a set index page (which does not necessarily follow the rules of a dab page; see WP:SETINDEX and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Index pages), or a redirect. Unfortunately, the taxa pages are not particularly well developed, so the redirect option does not work well at present I think. A redirect could be a reasonable option, if the taxa pages on these penguins were really good on taxonomy. The genus page could be worked up, if any editors have the knowledge and spare time. I have modified it in the direction of a set index page, but I could equally have modified it in the direction of an article, but I was not sure what to put in the taxobox and I am not familiar with the references. I am sure that there are several correct solutions. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

the cockateil

The Cockatiel scientific name is Nymphicus Hollandicus.Also known as Quarrion and the Weiro.They are the smallest Cockatoo Endemic to Australia.They are related to the Parrot and the Cockatoo.They are native to the outback regions of Inland Australia,and favour the Alstralian Wetlands,Srublans,and Bushlands.All Cockatiel khiks and jubeniles are are typically female,and virtully the same from the time hatching until first Molting they displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.20.60 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an amendment to the article on the Cockatiel? Snowman (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cockatiel scientific name is Nymphicus Hollandicus.Also known as Quarrion and the Weiro.They are the smallest Cockatoo endemic to Australia.They are related to the Parrot and Cockatoo.They are native to the outback regions or Inland Australia,and Favour the Australia Wetlands,Scrublands,and Bushlands.all Cockatiels khicks and jubeiles are typiclly female,and virtuslly the same from the time hatching untill their first molting they diplayed.Borizontal yellow sripes or bars on the venral surface of the primary flight feathers of these wings, a gray colored crest of there and face,and a dull orange patch on each of there cheaks.This is only evident after the first molting,typiclly occuring obout six to nine months after hatching:the male loses the white or yellow baring and spots on the underside of his feathers and wings.The grey feathers and his cheeks and crest are replaced by bright yellow feathers.While the orange cheek patch becomes brighter and more distink the face and crest of the female will typclly remain mostly grey though also with an orange cheek patch.Additionally,the female commonly retain the horizontal burring on the under side of her tail feathers .They are foung largely in Arid or Semi-Arid contry,but always near. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.20.60 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some spelling mistakes in the above. Where did you find this information? Snowman (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Feather parts

We currently have several tiny stub articles for parts of feathers: Barb (feather), Barbule and Barbicel. These are not likely to grow to be more than a few sentences each — and as they currently exist, they don't do a very good job of showing / explaining how the bits fit together. I'd like to combine all these tiny stubs into a section of the Feather article, with a close-up photo of the various components. The component names could be redirected to the article section, so that if someone entered one of the above terms, Wikipedia would take them to the right place. Does this sound agreeable to others? Any comments appreciated! MeegsC | Talk 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the suggestion. Maias (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Me too. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Me three. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I can see these becoming proper articles, but there is nothing wrong with merging to feather now. —innotata 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that the information could be organised differently. The feather article is quite long and lumped with anatomy, physiology, evolution, parasites, and human use. There is no mention of feather plucking as a disorder and perhaps feather pathology could be organised better. I think that is would be helpful to lump the anatomy and physiology in the same article, and I wonder if it would be better to split the "Human usage" section. I wonder if there is a need for a main article on feather evolution, and I wonder if a new article "Feather anatomy" or "List of feather parts" would be helpful. The article "Feather" is a Top importance article, around which helping articles can be organised. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pileated woodpecker

The picture in the top right box in the Wiki article identifies the bird as as a male. Since it lacks the red cheek streak, I think that's an error and it should be listed as a female.97.85.50.206 (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you click on the photo (so that you get a larger image), you'll see that the bird does have a red cheek streak. It just doesn't show very well (or at all, really) at the smaller size. MeegsC | Talk 02:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be tempted to substitute File:Pileated Woodpecker in a Tree.jpg --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You would be welcome to change the image for a better one. Snowman (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Done --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (89)

Correct identification. Dario Sanches (who took the photo) is getting pretty good with the identifications and I rarely catch him making a mistake anymore. Unless he expressed uncertainty or similar in the identification (in the photo title or the the text below the photo) you can generally trust the identification he indicated. A bit more uncertainty is involved when dealing with some of his older photos, e.g. taken more than 1½ year ago. For example, in the text below this photo, he mentions that it actually shows the undescribed taxon related to, but not necessarily conspecific with, Stymphalornis acutirostris (the "São Paulo Antwren" mentioned in the text of the wiki article). In other words, the photo File:Stymphalornis acutirostris .jpg really should be renamed to "Sao Paulo Antwren -Sao Paulo, Brazil" or something like that, pending the publication of its description. Due to the uncertainty involving the genus name Stymphalornis, I'd suggest staying away from that in this case. The SP often included in the location for this photos is a standard Portuguese abbreviation for the São Paulo state (abbreviations for all Brazilian states here). • Rabo³ • 05:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think that it is appropriate to rename the antwren file, please start a file rename on commons. I can only speak English, so help with other languages is appreciated. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a threat display (as you'll have guessed). The description in BNA on line says the body is parallel to the substrate, the wings are drooped away from the body, which sways sideways as the bird shifts from one foot to the other. The bird hisses and snaps its bill. Usually it squints, but not here. (I have no idea why not.) If you upload the video, I'll add this information with the source.
Apparently you can't tell juvenile from adult Barn Owls unless they still have down or you can see that all the flight feathers are the same age (typical of juveniles). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Tyto alba -USA -three hissing and clicking-8.ogv on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you expect adult owls to be more aggressive? Snowman (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No idea. I've never even seen this species. I'll get to that caption Real Soon Now. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Done (if anyone was waiting). Apparently their interspecies aggressive behavior is to lie on their back and strike with both feet. I assume they do this only when the attacker is at close range. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw two young Barn Owls at a small bird show this week. The bird handler said that juvenile Barn Owls have more pointed faces than the adults. They did not have an adult Barn Owl with them, so I could not make a direct comparison myself. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup. MeegsC | Talk 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a Western Screech-owl. MeegsC | Talk 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope. This is either a Northern or Southern White-faced Owl. Unless the zoo only has one or the other, I'm not sure it can be identified to species; these were recently split and are quite tricky to distinguish. Sadly (given that this bird has its eyes closed), eye color is one of the best ways to separate them! MeegsC | Talk 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Mourning Doves, and very sweet. The two more heavily marked ones are immatures. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Zenaida macroura -Mesa, Arizona, USA -parent and chicks-8a.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine. Shyamal (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Bay-winged Cowbird. MeegsC | Talk 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. MeegsC | Talk 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:GLAM/SI Ambassador oppurtunity

Hello, WikiProject Birds/Archive 51! We would like to invite your WikiProject to help with the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. Because of the Scope of your project, your project has been nominated to be part of our WikiProject Embassy, a place for WikiProjects to help Editors participating in the Smithsonian Collaboration improve articles, find materials, and create partnerships for the future. We hope that you will nominate an Ambassador for our participants to contact. Thanks!!!


We are currently in contact with several individuals at the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, if you would supply someone for them to contact for help that would be very useful. They are interested in cooperating with Wikipedia in increasing access to their resources, I hope you can help, 12:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you say a little more about what this would involve, please? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah...I am intrigued. Maybe releasing some photos? online access to some journals? Hmmm. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, what do Ambassadors do? (Not that I'd be likely to have the time for it.)
Wikipedians come and go (sometimes on field trips), but there are almost always people discussing birds on this page. It seems to me that if Smithsonian staff want to make suggestions or ask questions about bird articles, the simplest and most convenient method would be to post here. Alternatively, the Smithsonian could host some sort of discussion site that interested WP:BIRD members could go to. No doubt this idea has been considered and rejected, but I wonder why. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Audubon's Birds of America

Almost all the images in the Commons category commons:Category:The Birds of America have not been placed in the correct species category. I've been adding a few to their categories, but there are hundreds, and I don't know the current name for many of them. —innotata 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This looks useful. I did "Brown Titlark" and "Savannah Finch" with it. I also commented that a few people believe Audubon's claim that the "Bird of Washington" was not a Bald Eagle, but instead a different species, the biggest raptor in North America. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Click "image", not "text", and look for "common name" on the left. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (91)

Identified as Black Redstart and renamed to File:Phoenicurus ochruros (juvenile) 01.jpg, File:Phoenicurus ochruros (juvenile) 02.jpg, and File:Phoenicurus ochruros (juvenile) 03.jpg by User:MPF. —innotata 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Male Black-naped Fruit-dove. Maias (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ptilinopus melanospilus -London Zoo, England-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
A tough one, but I think I'd lean toward Great Green Macaw. MeegsC | Talk 02:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I would call it a Military Macaw, partly because of the maroon (not red) in its tail. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I have just checked ISIS, which lists Omaha Zoo (also called Henry Doorly Zoo) with one Military Macaw of unknown gender and no Great Green Macaws. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Ara militaris -Henry Doorly Zoo, Omaha, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
More opinions will be appreciated. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Male Ruby-throated Hummingbird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Archilochus colubris -flying -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that's a moulting male Ruby-throated Hummingbird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Black-chested Buzzard-eagle. An adult, probably a female, given the cinnamon hue to the upperwing. MeegsC | Talk 23:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Geranoaetus melanoleucus -Caylloma, Arequipa, Peru -captive-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Brown Wood-owl. The fine vermiculation below, barred wing coverts, unmarked brown head and pale bill all rule out Spotted. MeegsC | Talk 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Moved to File:Strix leptogrammica -Kuala Lumpur Bird Park, Malaysia-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Gyps fulvus Shyamal (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it difficult to identify some of these Old World vultures. Could it be a Rüppell's Vulture? Snowman (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The bluish/purplish skin and the pale bill are important features. I agree that photographs can be very tricky especially if taken in bad light. The park Parque Las Aquilas del Teide, Tenerife however has the species according to this photograph - http://www.flickr.com/photos/lindadevolder/2104673915/ - One option for reliable information is to ask the park people at http://www.aguilasjunglepark.com/contacto.php Shyamal (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks good for a purebred. Does your info tell you what the hybrid cross is? MeegsC | Talk 02:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
ISIS lists one at the zoo under "Tauraco porphyreolophus <<Hybrid>>". I am not sure what that implies. It could indicate a hybrid between subspecies. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of "birds of Iran" category by IP

See this edit. Already categorised as a bird of Saudi Arabia, but does not appear in the range map. Is it vand? Snowman (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Red-necked Grebe certainly occurs in Iran; evidently the range map is incomplete. Maias (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh... Pakistan is the other one being added, blocked again, reverting edits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Just caught another one in the act - 78.148.200.238 (talk · contribs). Blocked and all edits reverted. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been going on the assumption that all of the edits of that user should be reverted, even though they may be getting a random one or two correct. To check every single one and look for sources, just to be sure, is a waste of time, in my opinion. But I'd like be sure about this in case it's questioned at some point. Keep reverting on sight? Just fyi, there is a running tally of their IP addresses here. First Light (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
These category additions are not particularly useful. I think in the past there have even been CfD based deletions of birds by nation categories. Mass revert should be quite safe and time saving. Shyamal (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a policy discussion archived somewhere? Should all catagory birds of X be deleted or are only certain countries allowed? I mean, if you're in there reverting an addition of yet one more, you could just as well delete the lot. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_14#Category:Fauna_by_country Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_22#Category:Fauna_by_country_and_subcats Category_talk:Biota_by_country These discussion resulted in a "keep" vote for these categories. The addition of categories for proposed or breakaway "countries" (Sikkim, Kashmir) - is however what this IP editor is often interested in. And the additions are sometimes incorrect. Shyamal (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Chuunen Baka, the issue here is that this particular IP user has an extremely poor track record of disruption and inaccuracy, and is making the changes based solely on nationalism—randomly and mass-adding Categories for Kashmir, Pakistan, and now Iran, and changing the intext "India" to "Republic of India" in order to bump it down the alphabetical list. If it were a legitimate editor, this question wouldn't be raised. They have been warned countless times, asked to edit according to policy, and never responded. So the question I raised above is whether to mass-revert, since most of us don't have the time to pore through every edit, going to the references, looking for that one or two that might be correct. First Light (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. With his latest batch, as I usually do, I opened up 7-8 of the IPs additions at random and didn't see "Iran" mentioned as part of their range in the text in a single one of those articles, so I assumed the rest were the same. First Light (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I can see that it is useful to have a consensus prior to the mass reversion of an editors work. If an IP editor can be reasonably assumed to be making numerous non-constructive edits, then I think that mass deletion would help to reduce disruption to the wiki. WP Birds can sort out the "Birds of xyz" categories in due course after other higher priority work is completed. Snowman (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of his edits are probably correct - however, from what I can determine, he seems to be adding the category arbitrarily to bird species articles that mention that the bird occurs in 'Asia'. Just reverted another IP, btw (added to First Light's list). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
He also sneaks in outright vandalism among his edits, such as replacing the category for Birds of Israel with Iran,[8] and in the article itself replacing Jammu and Kashmir with Kashmir,[9] both incorrect and politically based edits. It's hard to assume good faith or actual research on his part. First Light (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Here he is again (78.148.207.229 (talk · contribs)), replacing one country with another.[10] First Light (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The edit summaries for a mass reversion should probably include that a trail of vand is being followed, which would help to explain an occasional random correct edit in the trail. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I always check a bit before reverting these edits, but using custom rollback summaries is probably called for. —innotata 16:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Diet Of Frogs And Rodents vandal

He's doing his thing again from an IP that was previously blocked: 67.248.166.183 (talk · contribs). Since he's the only one to edit from that address, a longer block wouldn't hurt. First Light (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

He can try again in a month. Ucucha 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Saxaul Sparrow

This article looks almost ready for FAC now that I've looked it up in the HBW to ensure it is comprehensive. Any comments, suggestions, and sources would be welcome. —innotata 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxaul Sparrow/archive1. —innotata 21:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
And joined by Blue-faced Honeyeater...so we have two passerines perched at FAC :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Now three birdies at FAC - Huia - choice! Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Passerine season continues - Flame Robin at FAC..Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

anatomy redux...

I was asked to link or explain lores in a good article nomination - Flame Robin - and I looked around and found only the head section of Bird anatomy and Lore, a disambiguation page. Does anyone have a bird anatomy reference book to buff up [Bird anatomy]]? Do we think lores warrants a separate page? Also frons is used in birds as well as insects (???) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Orders

I'm easing myself back into Wikipedia by working on the article Heron. I'm wondering, however, what order the poor family is in. The Ardeidae was traditionally in the Ciconiiformes but the article now has it in the Pelecaniformes, a placement not reflected or even mentioned in the article Pelecaniformes. Can we perhaps agree to a tentative kind of order to the orders and make the family and order pages agree with each other? The whole thing is a huge mess right now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be good to map out - all old/classical Pelecaniformes and Ciconiiformes and list which authority has what families ended up where. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Birds of xyz categories

Incidentally, I have been thinking about using the "List of birds of xyz" to add a "Birds of xyz" category for every bird article on the list, but it depends on the "List of birds of xyz" being correct. Perhaps it would be reasonable to do this for the FLs. However, I am concentrating on illustrations at present, but I am wondering if this would be worth piloting one or two FLs as an experiment using semi-automatic software. Please note that as I have not written the scrip yet, I am not entirely sure what problems there might be or if I can get it to work. Snowman (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please no. Please. Cosmopolitan species would have hundreds of cats. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, where do you draw the line with these cats? Does the bird have to be a year-round resident, or do we include overwintering/summer visitors? How about rare vagrants? Pelagic birds that sometimes come pretty close to the coastline of a certain country? Feral populations? Birds that have been observed in a country twice in the 20th century? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If a bird is extinct, is it still a bird of were it used to live? Snowman (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how these cats could be easily made to work. Example: Peregrine Falcon occurs in nearly every country but it currently has only 3 Birds of X cats - India, Pakistan and Iran! There are some conflicting WP ideas - you can't have too much info, info does not have to be complete to be useful, all info should be cited. I think it is the lack of cites that make these cats unencyclopedic. Unless there was some way to hide/show sets of cats (meta cats!) they are just unuseful clutter. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed all three of those cats. Will not be surprised to know the IP address of the contributor of those three. Shyamal (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: Could it be implemented so that the birds appear in the categories, but the categories (or at least not all of them) appear on the article?—outoffocus 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, with hidden categories. But I question whether such categories are a good idea at all; surely lists of birds by country can serve the same purpose better. Ucucha 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rethink: These categories are not as complete as the "Lists of birds of xyz", so should all "Birds of xzy-land" categories be removed from bird pages? Snowman (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some implications that need to be thought through. I would be quite happy to leave the detailed country lists to do the job and delete all the "Birds of (political entity)" categories. Then there are the "Birds of (geographic entity)" categories with, of course, some overlap. I am more in favour of the latter, though rather than clutter up articles with mentions of vagrants, maybe they could be restricted to endemic birds, breeding birds or regular passage migrants. Maias (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
A thought - keep it extremely simple and use only 'Birds of <continent>' categories, delete everything else. Any takers? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we already do this for Europe, with (at least in theory) only the continent and no countries. It's logical and simple to extend that, so that even Peregrine, Osprey and Barn Owl have less than half-a-dozen geocats Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Also, a check of a random dozen or so articles suggests that many have no individual countries listed except - guess what? Turkey, Pakistan, India and Palestine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
What are the exact names of the continent categories. Perhaps lists of continent and geographical area categories are needed. Should there be another category for seabirds that are wanderers at sea most of the time. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Using only 'Birds of <continent>' categories seems to be a great solution, along with a possible seabird category(ies). Incomplete filling of country categories (i.e., only Turkey, Pakistan, India) gives as much of an erroneous impression as incorrect categories. 'List of <country>' articles seem more than sufficient for country distribution. First Light (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use 'Pelagic birds of the <foo> Ocean'? or 'Pelagic birds of the Northern/Southern Hemisphere'? for the sea wanderers? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
As for the continent categories, I'd suggest -
  • Birds of Europe
  • Birds of Asia (or should we combine these into 'Eurasia'?)
  • Birds of North America
  • Birds of South America
  • Birds of Africa
  • Birds of Oceania/Australasia/Australia (probably need to discuss that one)
  • Birds of Antarctica
--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Where would you put Central America? Mexico into North America and the rest into South America? (Biogeographically, that's probably closest.) MeegsC | Talk 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. When dividing a landmass by continent, there's always some arbitrary line drawn somewhere. Also, I forgot Africa (now added above). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit: Actually, isn't Central America included in North America when discussing continents? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Would Central America merit its own category? This is coming from someone who lives in North America and sees Central America as a having a very distinct ecology from NA. First Light (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Usually, Central America is considered part of North America. —innotata 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it depends on what you mean by "usually". Many biologists consider everything south of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec as being South America, as (biogeographically speaking) things are more similar to SA there. However, since it's hard to split a country, all of Mexico is typically considered part of North America, rather than everything but Chiapas being considered part of North America, and Chiapas and points south being considered part of South America. MeegsC | Talk 03:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
That makes a lot more intuitive sense, biogeographically, to this norteamericano. It eliminates my concern about Central American birds being categorized as "North America". First Light (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I doubt biogeographers would consider Central America part of South America; part of the Neotropis perhaps. Ucucha 10:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Are there any birds in the Arctic? Snowman (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Europe, Asia and North America all have portions of their land masses in the Arctic, and birds are found in Arctic areas of all of them. MeegsC | Talk 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

<-Ucucha, I agree that Neotropis (or the Neotropical Ecozone) is certainly a better description. However, you must admit that Neotropis includes all of South America, and most of Central America! MeegsC | Talk 15:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if we use "North America", we should include Central America. Do we want to use "Neotropical birds", "Afrotropical birds", "Holarctic birds", etc.? —innotata 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I introduced that categorization at nl.wikipedia a few years ago. It works, I think; the problem is that many people aren't familiar with the ecozones and that the borders may be fussy (for example, Wallacea, southern Florida, and a few other places). Ucucha 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Innotata, why on earth should we include Central America in North America? Surely, the avifauna of Central America is far closer related to that of SA than NA! MeegsC | Talk 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If we're gonna use biogeography as the guide for the cats, then we should use the biogeographical names (Neotropical versus Neartic). If we're going to use the straight out continents, then Central America is part of the North American continent. Yes as you move further south the fauna becomes more Neotropical but there are trogons in Arizona and Limpkins in Florida and that is hardly the Neotropics. The notion that Central America isn't part of the continent is a particularly odd one but common in the US I've noticed (and been amused by). Perhaps Americans are worried it will lower house prices! Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously we have to go by reliable sources and common usage, and not our abject terror over house prices going down :-). First Light (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it grew in the process and this is the last wiki editing I'll have the chance of doing for some time;-) If we have to choose, I would certainly suggest we stick to the political boundaries. Most "ordinary" people have no idea what zoogeographical groupings cover: Neotropics (when people know, they're usually confused about its coverage of cold regions like Patagonia), Nearctic (New World Arctic? Is coastal California really New World Arctic?), Afrotropic (surely northern Africa is included, but southernmost Arabia can't be anything Africa), Australasia (how much Asia?) and Palearctic (no "normal" person would know or be able to guess), etc. On the contrary, virtually everybody knows and most would also be able to roughly delimit all the continents (just see this☺) with the only possible exception being the field guide definition of North America. Central, North and South America are political terms and should not be confused with zoogeographic terms. When placed in one of the continents, Central America is always included in North America. Countries, just like continents, are political, and I presume no one would suggest we go away from those even if they usually do not match the zoogeography. E.g. in Panama the western part is associated with the Costa Rican highlands and the eastern is associated with the Chocó. Both Mexican slopes well north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec are Neotropical. Depending on view, marginally even extending to Texas and Arizona, though many stop just south of that (always well north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, however). The Caribbean and southern Florida are Neotropical, too. From a strictly geographical point of view, the Florida Scrub Jay, endemic to the state of the same name, is more Neotropic than Nearctic, but the Black-polled Yellowthroat, a Mexican endemic, is more Nearctic than Neotropic. At pro zoogeographical levels I have never seen all Mexico treated as Neotropical or for that matter all China as Palearctic, as both quite simply would be incorrect. At high school level and in some popular literature perhaps, but not beyond that. The map from the Neotropical article is reasonably good. Even bird clubs, scientific committees, literature and alike deal with political boundaries rather than the zoogeographical: SACC covers South America, NACC covers North America, Ridgely & Tudor's Birds of South America covers South America, The Birds of Africa by Fry and others covers Africa, the African Bird Club covers Africa, etc. The only exceptions I can think of are the Eurocentric western Palearctic, the Oriental Bird Club and Ryan and Sinclair's Birds of Africa South of the Sahara, but the first is only half the zooregion, the second extends it coverage well north of Indomalaya (to eastern Russia), and the final does not really match the Afrotropics as it lacks southern Arabia and Madagascar (however, the latter commonly is included in its own group only loosely associated with the Afrotropics). If we were to use the actual zoogeographical boundaries –IMO the only real option if disregarding political continents– what would we do with the border cases? No published "Bird list of the Neotropics" exists and the same is the case for the other regions. Finally, careful with "biogeographical" in this context, as plants have different groups→phytochorion. Unfortunately it appears our article for Neotropical is written almost exclusively from a zoogeographical point of view, but in plants e.g. southermost South America is part of the Antarctic Kingdom. • Rabo³ • 21:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd articles

I stumbled on two weird bird articles:

Ucucha 10:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The African Kestrel article is semi-coherent but pointless, since the geographical grouping does not correspond to any taxonomic significance. I'd delete unless there's anything worth transferring to a related article. The Tapaculo is a mess. If we don't accept the split, it should be rewritten as a single species, with a mention of the proposed split. If the split is accepted, the new species needs its own article. At present, it's a single article about two species, which is not a runner Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone on the talk page mentioned that "African kestrel" is also a common name for the Fox Kestrel, so perhaps we can just redirect there and transfer any useful information on the other species. Ucucha 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The tapaculos are a mess, but there are clearly two species, as the wiki article also states in both the intro ("...are two species") and the taxonomic section. All recent publications, including one that hasn't been included in the wiki article yet (Whitney et al. 2010), clearly show there are two different species. The main confusion relates to their names (specifically the use of Mouse-coloured Tapaculo and S. speluncae), not their validity. We can split the articles, but as the confusion relates to both the English and scientific names, I cannot see how it can be done without going POV and following one of the two sides of the argument. If anyone can come up with an idea that would allow a split of the article without going POV it would be a possible solution, but one article dealing with several species is not a problem in itself (we do it all the time; genera, families). Alternatively we can disregard the mess entirely (essentially going back to what most believed was correct until 2005), in which case I'll remove all info relating to the confusion (most is mine anyway; pre-confusion version). Whitney et al. 2010 are on one side of the discussion and therefore do not solve the mess, but provide an additional dimension which I had planned on adding soon(-ish). However, this obviously depends on the outcome of the discussion here. Someone, presumably unaware of the situation, started Rock Tapaculo a few days ago based on Whitney et al. 2010, which is just a new name for the inland (Espinhaço) species mentioned in Mouse-coloured Tapaculo. • Rabo³ • 17:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
A possible, though unorthodox solution is to create an article titled Scytalopus speluncae complex or so, cover the set of controversies there, and redirect the disputed species until the dust is settled. I don't think we should go to the pre-confusion version, as the information is highly relevant. Ucucha 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
A possible soluation, but if I understand the suggestion right, this would be essentially the same article under another potentially problematic name (see #3 below). We could, of course, have both that page and pages for the two species, but this would result in further problems:
1) We'd still be left with the question of what species the name Mouse-coloured Tapaculo should be used for. As other English names have been suggested for all taxa, this problem can be avoided.
2) We'd still be left with the question of what species the name S. speluncae should be used for. The name certainly will end up being used. In fact, this is the very core of the discussion; is that name for the inland or the coastal species?
3) The Scytalopus speluncae complex actually exists: Either it covers a whole bunch of species (6 + undescribed), or in a more limited and arguably more correct context it covers either –not both– species together with other species (coastal with S. iraiensis and undescribed Bahian species; inland with S. novacapitalis, S. diamantinensis and S. pachecoi). If used only for the two discussed species we'd be inventing a new definition for the term. • Rabo³ • 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Such an article should also cover the related species—all those you mention, I believe. That is a real unit, and an article on the complex as a whole would enable us to cover them without choosing any side (as the current article does by listing speluncae and notorius as the species). Ucucha 18:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, African kestrel is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/African_kestrel. First Light (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I did that. —outoffocus 01:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll be away for a few weeks and therefore will not participate further in this discussion. Whether people suggest we should maintain the tapaculo article at its present location or move it to Scytalopus speluncae complex, I'll check it out and make some tweaks when I have more time at hand. Marginally I would support Scytalopus speluncae complex over its present location, but don't feel strongly about it. The Scytalopus speluncae complex in the broad sense includes S. iraiensis, S. novacapitalis, S. diamantinensis, S. pachecoi (all species where there are no major discussions, except species/subspecies) and the two problematic taxa (inland and coastal populations presently discussed in Mouse-coloured Tapaculo). For now I have redirected the newly started Rock Tapaculo + S. petrophilus to the Mouse-coloured Tapaculo article, where I also added a few minor tweaks. Regardless of the articles final name, some additional tweaks will be needed, but in either case the current version will do for now. • Rabo³ • 12:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
A proposal dealing with this has just been submitted to SACC. Pending the outcome, I would suggest we put our discussion on the tapaculos on hold. • Rabo³ • 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Corncrake Crex crex is from 2010 in LC category

Corncrake is now LC - Least Concern not NT

Source: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=2878 and http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=2878&m=1 and http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.82.68 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Raptors task force?

I'm just wondering if anyone would be interested in participating in a 'Raptors task force' or a 'Birds of Prey task force'. —outoffocus 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Painting by Baird?

Does anyone know whether Spencer Fullerton Baird did all the paintings in the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey bird volume? Specifically, this one? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No mention here of artistic ability. Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Or in some other sources. However, this page credits the lithograph to him (and might be profitably scavenged, but not by me right now). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"In some cases, the author provided the drawings from which Ackerman produced lithographs, as did Spencer F. Baird and Charles Girard in the zoological appendix and John Torrey for several of the plates in the botanical appendix. Some drawings were signed by other artists commissioned for the job and many others are by unknown hands. " - http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/exhibits/ames/leap.html - credits Baird for some of the pictures at least. "The ornithological studies produced from the Railroad Surveys were of such outstanding quality that they were republished in 1860 under the aegis of the Smithsonian Institution. Entitled The Birds of North America, the illustrations and text by Spencer Baird are still considered to be among the best of the early ornithological works on American birds" Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Table formating at List of birds of Australia (copied from my talk page)

Hi Snowman. Please see my discussion there. Just wondering why, given that we have multiple featured lists that are bullet-formated, as this one was previously. I genuinely find your format ugly (no hostility intended), though I appreciate that's eye of beholder. But the table heading redundancy point is inarguable. Is there a clear benefit you can point to?

Suggestion: Discuss first. The appropriate place might be here, since this presumably will affect all our lists: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Country_lists#List_template_.2F_format.--Gergyl (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an every-day editor here, so only just saw yours. I notice that List of birds of Tasmania is now back to bullet format. You mean this discussion:
Yikes! where'd all those tables come from?? I felt it looked better plain white without all the lines like an excel document, but your view may vary. Not sure what could go in, 'R' for resident and maybe noting summer visitors etc., but there'd be alot of 'R's Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I was following the format of other bird lists, which seems to be used quite a lot. The third column is used quite a lot here, so I think that the table helps a quick visual scan. If you think the flat list was better, then use the flat list. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
In the interests of consistency then, hadn't seen the boxes on recent promotions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: That format was only used in the Thailand and Vieques lists alone (out of 18), so I think we should maybe look at those. Sorry to revert you snowman, I think I got your other non-table changes back in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The other current FLC is "List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland" and that has a tables, so format specifications are rather puzzling for reviewers. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised by that and will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thailand and Leicestershire are both mine. I prefer tables because I usually give a status and it looks neater. It's not a rule however. Having said that, the numbers thing is imho irrelevant anyway, many of the older lists would probably struggle with the current criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Issues I have with table format, in order of importance:
  1. Ugly (seems others agree, above)
  2. Departs from practice; loss of consistency - notwithstanding above comments, most country lists are bullet formatted, and in a pretty consistent style. Featured example: List of birds of Canada and the United States. That's not just birds. I also sampled six times at Lists of mammals by region; all were bullet format lists.
  3. Inserts redundancy in what are already often long pages - via the repeated table heading lines
  4. Offers little obvious benefit - perhaps sort (requires the heading lines), additional details (requires more columns, and work) - vis Sabine's comment at List of birds of Australia:
No particular objections to using the table format, except perhaps at present its strength, being able to include lots of information cleanly while being easy to read, isn't being used. It would be certainly a useful addition to indicate which species are endemic. Additionally it could be useful to list all the states a bird is found in, either in abbreviated form in this column, (Vic, NSW, WA etc) or formatted like I have in List of birds of Fiji. Sabine's Sunbird talk 14:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
--Gergyl (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • With regards to your points; ugliness is subjective ( I don't think either are any prettier); consistency for consistency's sake doesn't strike me as a important reason (they are mostly that way because that is the way they were created, by a bot); redundancy is a small issue to my mind and the benefit when trying to include lots of information is to my mind great, as it makes the information clear. Yes more information is more work, but surely potential FLs are supposed to include lots of useful information and be hard work? The list of birds of Australia strikes me as one where extra information (which state it occurs in, conservation status, endemicity etc) would make the list much more useful. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC for Huia

Anybody feel like doing a copyedit on Huia as it goes through its FA? It is a bit overwordy and overwritten in places. I'm a bit too familiar with the article to see everything - no worries if no one's in the mood, but it might help... Cheers. Kahuroa (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Original requester has withdrawn request: see this edit. I think some people have actioned this request, so I have restored it so that it can will be clearly visible in the archives. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism/disruption

This nationalist editor, who has been discussed here previously, is especially active right now. If you see edits from the 89.* and 78.* IP ranges, take a closer look. He typically goes through dozens of bird articles at a time, randomly changing "India"-->"Republic of India", adding "Kashmir" as a country, adding "Palestine" or "Pakistan" to a bird's distribution and categories, etc. WP:AIV sometimes will just give a kind and gentle warning instead of blocking, so I'm also bringing it here. You can see his efforts just this week at 78.145.117.122 (talk · contribs), 78.145.120.111 (talk · contribs), 78.145.125.237 (talk · contribs), 89.240.231.227 (talk · contribs), 89.241.7.165 (talk · contribs), 89.240.227.229 (talk · contribs). User:Shyamal has also been reverting (and blocking, since he's an admin), but it could use more eyes. First Light (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I picked this up too, if he continues I'll put a much longer block on unless Shyamal gets there first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Blocked all above, 1 month Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Jim, the 1 month block will not be very useful. It is a dynamic IP and each time the router is switched on it will get a new IP - judging by the range that is more than 4*255*255 possible random number assignments (and noting that the user does not actually switch on the router again for the day, it would appear that the router is outside the control of the user). Essentially the starting point is the List of birds of Pakistan, List of birds of Israel and List of birds of India (apart from lists of mammals, reptiles and amphibians) and then the user just keeps adding categories or tweaking text. Shyamal (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
point noted, blocked as 89.240.238.61 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours today after only four edits! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_51&oldid=1137392099"