This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For species where there is marked sexual dimorphism two images are often shown in the infobox, one of the male and one of the female, when an single image of a pair is not available. Are there any other circumstances where two or more images should appear in the infox? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Male and female of a sexually dimorphic species
2. An array of x by y joined images for a family or order page
3. Different ages including chicks
4. Different activities; flight, perching, swimming, or diving
5. Different subspecies
6. Different plumages phases
7. Different views of identical birds to show near 360 degree plumage
I think there is a balance between cluttering the infobox with two or more poorly captioned images vs the simplicity of showing one showcase image of the species in the infobox. I have attempted to put the most acceptable uses of multiple images higher up the list (above). Is there a cut-off where showing two or more images would be expected to look too cluttered and the additional images would be better shown with explanatory text in the main body of the article? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Good idea to raise this. Certainly no more than two images. Personally, I'd prefer a single good taxobox image. I could live with male/female for very sexually dimorphicspecies if that's a consensus. I can't see a case at all for any of the others. Different plumages/ages/ssp/activities are more appropriate under Description/Breeding/Behaviour/Subspecies etc. Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
My views align with Jim's really. I think my order of "need" for multiple taxobox images aligns roughly with the above too. Probably best to look case by case. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ditto the above; prefer one image, two only if photo of pair of significantly sexually dimorphic species not available. MeegsC | Talk23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I usually go two if sexually dimorphic or breeding plumage is significantly different, subject to any article formatting constraints. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with the concept and ordering but I prefer two images, one of each sex, to the two sexes in one picture. It is diffcult to show the whole birds in a single image and they would both be rather small images. Dger (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Two birds in the same image will be on the same scale, which is better than having a male and female birds at different sizes in two photographs. See example 4 below. Snowman (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
They would have to be in the same plane for that to work, such as the picture of the Pileated Woodpechhers. Very difficult to achieve except in a zoo. Dger (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
1. House Sparrow. Currently has two images in the infobox, one for the male and one for the female, and I think this is acceptable in the absence of a good photograph of a pair. Consideration of this case individually: The two photographs are approximately the same scale and shape, and both birds are facing in the same direction, so to me the two images give the impression that the infobox is a finished product. I have been searching for images of a pair for some time, but the ones I have seen so far, with a Commons friendly copyright, do not show both the male and female as well as separate photographs. Actually, there seem to me to be comparatively few photographs of male and female House Sparrows together except in flocks or mating. Is there a reason for this? Snowman (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
But that means less good putting images on the top part. It is sstrange what sorts of images we have, though I can imagine it's harder to get those photos of birds of two sexes when not in large flocks or mating. We also don't really have any photos of House Sparrow courtship, even though we do have good Dead Sea and Spanish Sparrow photos. —innotata01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Cattle Egret (FA status article). I have removed an image of a non-breeding Cattle Egret from the top of the infobox. I modified the page from this (two images in infobox) to this (one image in infobox). Consideration of this case individually: I thought that here the two images appearing in the infoxox were not on the same scale nor the same shape and made the infobox look cluttered and untidy. In addition, only a small portion of the grey cow's head is shown in the background making it difficult to determine what grey area represents. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The length of the taxobox image in cattle egret I think precludes a second image there. However, I do think a non-breeding image would be good further up the article. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Under this heading these are not images for identification. The issue here is if the presentation of two images of different plumage phases in the infobox would be better in the body of the article, where the topic of plumage phases can be discussed discussed. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, they are startlingly different. My first thought is to try and expand the text so the images dominate the text less. I think that is the best way to help that one. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Very useful. I have rearranged the images for better layout and added a short blurb on relationships. Too lazy to cite HBW, where the superspecies info is from; it will have to be cited in proper at the first major overhaul anyway. In any case the layout is now more even. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Very nice, only change if we get something as good as this that also has the female tail visible and the male lifting the wing. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Here I'd replace the illustration with the photos. The female one is not quite so good - a full side view of head and wings is probably needed to be diagnostic - but it would clean up the layout and then we can add the photo of the male foraging on the ground to round off the article for example. Now we have only 4 images showing them doing the same thing (sitting around and not much else), this is not ideal. But we only have this one other photo of an Indigo Bunting doing anything else, so it should be in there. Adding it now would probably make the article a bit heavy/unevenly distributed in images. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please write your own conclusions and/or make comments:
1. Two images shown in one infobox can illustrate a reasonably simple aspect of the species and this can be captioned in the infobox. I gauged this from the examples where two images have been successful. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
2. When two image are used in the infobox, they can make the infobox look like a finished product by the images being about the same shape and each showing a bird about the same size. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm having an issue with another editor regarding the image for the taxobox for bird. User:Medeis created a composite image of many birds which had many problems, shoddy cropping, images that were barely visible in miniature or were poorly lit Rather than replace the image I suggested a number of changes to make the image sufficiently good to be the main image of our most important article. My attempts to elicit any improvements were rebuffed without a single concession. I was informed it was "too hard" and "too much work" - the last being extremely annoying as he put in two days of work and many of us spent months on that article. I left the matter for a while as O was a)away and b) hoped he might try and actually improve the image. No improvements have occured, so I went back to the old established technique of rotating featured images. He's put his image back and gone back to his old trick ofreverting and deleting my replies to his talk page. I'm not in the mood to get into an edit war. Can someone else weigh in on this and possibly get him to actually improve image if he's going to insist on placing it there. My comments on what is wrong with the image are here. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The above editor, rather than raise the issue on the article's talk page (where there is consensus in favor of a composite image) resorted to the expedient of issuing demands on my talk page that I re-edit the composite image for his sole approval or have it removed. Rather than discussing the matter where consensus already supports a composite, he choses to resort to immediately wikilawyering the issue. I have no problem with him replacing the few component images he finds fault with on his own, he was invited to do so long ago. But since I find his specific objections to those particular components not particularly persuasive I have no intention of making those changes on my own. The issue is not perfection according to his personal dislikes but what better expresses the consensus goal. The rationale of having a composite image to express at least some of the major diversity of the class speaks for itself, and the complainant does not dispute this. His action in replacing the composite with a single passerine is wp:pointy and wp:owning. I note that not one single editor besides the complaining editor above has expressed dissatisfaction with the image in the last many months, and that the image is used on thirteen other non-English language wikipedias. Let the complaining editor modify the current composite rather than seeking to force me to do so at his command.μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
A "consensus" to have a composite image? Where? I see a discussion about whether we should have one from before you made your image. "Immediate wikilawyering"? Hardly. I tried prodding you ages ago. I tried talking to you. You changed it back without even leaving me a message. And wikilwayering? I don't think that means whet you think it means. I didn't start quoting rules to support my position. I threw it to the crowd to see what people thought. That, my friend, is the opposite of wikilawayering. As for "reprsenting diversity" - it is a nice goal but unrealistic. And I think you have misunderstood my bit about improving it. I am not "ordering" you to do anything. I am stating that unless you do anything the image as it stands is of insufficient quality to go where you have put it. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Incredible. You reverted it without notifying me, and you complain that I restored it without leaving you a message? Where does this article bear the notice, "Copyright Sabine'sSunbird"? Who besides you in half a year has objected to the composite? Yes, there is a consensus, here, Extra999 and myself. You said you "couldn't be bothered." You have no notion of wikipedia policy or etiquette. I have invited you multiple times to modify the composite yourself by replacing those component parts of it which you find objectionable (3 components out of 18, I think?) with ones you think are better. Stop demanding that I do your work and seek your approval on whatever constructive acts I perform. Edit the image yourself. The only one stopping you is you. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
here, Extra999 and myself. This does not represent consensus. He asked if it should be montage or composite. I told him we had a pre-existing consensus was to rotate through excellent images because of the difficulties of composite images. He asked about how often we did it. I answered. He thought we should do it more often. I said go ahead. At no point did he say "I agree with putting Medeis' image in the taxobox, and SS is wrong".
Again, since you apparently cannot read. I am not NOT ordering you to do anything. I am saying the image is not good enough. I see no need for you or I to do anything more, since we have lots of good images that can go in its place. I am merely saying if YOU want a composite image that YOU will have to make one good enough to go there.
I don't just have 3 problems. I have have this many.
First image - poor cropping.
Third image - poor cropping, worse since the bill is cropped
Fourth image - unnatural taxidermy mount
Fifth image - head difficult to see
Sixth image - smaller concern but three ratites?
Tenth image - shockingly bad cropping - bill cropped but lots of space above head?
Thirteenth image - unnatural lighting and distracting background
fifteenth image - bird blends into background and is facing away from viewer - terrible image all round even when big
seventeeth image - poor lighting.
Fully half the images don't work or have issues. The rest are average, the only one that looks good at that size is the flamingo. I thought before that this sort of thing doesn't work and I still think so now. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk02:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
My short answer is that I generally agree with User Sabine's Sunbird's constructive criticisms of images as listed above. I think that with several weak images within the 3 x 6 array the final array does not look like a finished product. When I first saw the image of the penguin (third image) I was puzzled why it had been cropped to remove the beak at the top of the picture and the part of the penguin resting on the ground at the bottom of the picture. I also find it puzzling that the cassowary's helmet (first image) is cropped at the top. Perhaps, a very early dinosaur/fossil bird should be shown instead with selected colour photographs being shown in the body of the article. I have commented here partly because I do not see any discussion on the current topics for discussion on the Bird talk page and I expect that old discussions have been archived. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with Sabine's' comments. It would not be hard to find some better images: if working from the featured and other recognised photographs of birds, and eventually getting some orders covered. I also don't think this represents the diversity of birds all that well, though how on earth do you do this?? My thoughts: less ratites, definitely; more songbird-like birds. —innotata13:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Quite a long time ago I made the suggestion that the image File:BirdBeaksA.svg, another image on the Bird article, should show a parrots beak. I think this is an omission that has not been corrected to date. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure it's an omission. Maybe it should just represent some basic types, which perhaps parrots don't illustrate these so distinctly. —innotata13:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
errr... I had to look that word up to even find out what it meant. Isn't use of that word as a section heading in a huge range of articles with no explanation of the term directly contrary to Wikipedia:Jargon? Re: Avoid overly technical language--> Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used...substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed). Can't link it in the title and I have yet to see a bird article that even links the word, let alone explain it. Some variation of the word ("classification" or "classification and types"?) would probably better suit an encyclopedia. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
In biology, taxonomy is the naming of taxa, but the term has been extended to apply to the classification and naming of any set of entities and apparently a widespread misuse has even led to bans on general usage. The term systematics is broader and since it is the primary influence behind the naming of taxa, is perhaps more suitable as a heading but heading words as you point out are not to be linked in any case. "Types" could be confused with Type (biology). "Classification and naming" could be an option. Shyamal (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the bare bones definition is as Shyamal has just stated; the assignation of scientific binomina (or trinomina) to an entity as it is defined "by generally accepted convention". It is difficult, however, to divorce taxonomy from its raison d'etrè, which is pigeonholing conventionally defined entities within a higher classificative system, e.g., phylogenetics. Further, there is always the question of the conventions being used and why. Cf. speciation, with its multiple interpretations.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't really think of anything better than taxonomy—nothing is that good for this purpose. (Systematics is a rather similar term to taxonomy, but often refers to the field of study, and I'm quite sure it's more obscure; classification and naming or such is rather imprecise here, and not quite what taxonomy means, and if just replacing the current usage of "Taxonomy" any possible simpler terms would be close to neologism, .) Also, I'm not sure it quite is the jargon or technical languageWikipedia:Jargon seems to be directed at. —innotata12:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I sympathise with the difficulty this word might cause to some. If the word "taxonomy" appears in the section, then it could be wikilinked provided that it is well explained on the linked page. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I must admit I like the word as it really encapsulates all the info which usually goes in the section - scietific names, relationships, subspecies, common names, etymology, and sometimes some evolution thrown in (as it is intimately linked with cladistics). No other single word really covers the lot in one go. We could always have a mass discussion on it like the other one at present. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
(de-indent) I think rewording those "Taxonomy" section headings to something like "Classification and naming", re: Shyamal, would be appropriate. Section heading could also use the word "type", for example reading the article Mute Swan, the section heading could be "Types of Mute Swans". Even though "type" may have a more technical meaning somewhere it does not negate its use re:"use more understandable prose" I can tell you "taxonomy" is Jargon and difficult to "most" because I had to look it up to even get the meaning of the section (I think a fall under general reader but you can always give me an IQ test;)). Taxonomy may be precise to a knowledgeable person reading a textbook or scientific journal, but Wikipedia is nether textbook or a scientific journal. Specifically WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #7 - "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." Also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #8. WP:TECHNICAL - "understandable to a general audience". WP:MOS-->WP:Explain jargon - just wikilinking as a mechanism for explanation (rather than a parenthetical in the article) is poor form. All of these guidelines run counter to, or cannot be applied when the word is in a section heading. Looking at a few of these articles I actually see no place the word "Taxonomy" even needs to be injected, since Wikipedia does not to teach subject matter (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6). Ohioartdude2 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Taxonomy is in general use, and I don't know whether most people understand that (would be hard to tell), but in my own experience is the most recognisable term describing all this systematics-classification-nomenclature-evolution stuff. Taxonomy encompasses not just "classification" and "naming" but as Casliber points out things like relationships and etymology, which I don't think should usually be separated from a section on organism taxonomy. "Types" only covers one subset of the subject rather vaguely, can be confused with the more technical term, and including the name, is not very good style. I don't think "Taxonomy" is that great, but it's at least somewhat recognisable, there's nothing quite like it, and none of the alternatives are better. —innotata15:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the amount of explanation that would be involved solely for the purpose of not using the term "taxonomy" might prove to be greater, and more confusing, than it would be by simply defining the term in its essence. From Erritzoe (a dictionary defining terms from an ornithological viewpoint): taxonomy': the theory and practice of classifying organisms into taxa'. Often, inaccurately, considered synonymous with systematics, which is better defined as 'the scientific study of the diversity of organisms and their relationship' (Mayr 1969). Op.cit.: The Ornithologist's Dictionary, Erittzoe et al, 2007, P.256.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem still is, is Taxonomy jargon or technical? It is definitely not "plain terms and concepts" (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #7) so the answers seems to be yes. If you put Taxonomy in a section heading can you use any of the suggested guidelines to "explain it"? ....no. Covering "one subset of the subject rather vaguely" is actual mission of Wikipedia since it is an encyclopedia written for the general reader, it does not cover everything and it does not use technical writting. Hence the guidelines to use common language. Taxonomy could be integrated into the section its self with explanation (although I see no reason why, if you want to explain Taxonomy you write an article on Taxonomy.... already done). Having a Project MOS recommending putting "Taxonomy" in a section heading? ...every Wikipedia guideline points to that as a bad form in an encyclopedia. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, this starts to become just a bit esoteric for me. I am not here to expound on philosophy, or what should be the reasons that push people to make recourse to using what should be an encyclopedic information source, i.e., Wikipedia. Personally, if I have to reference a source, then I go there expecting to have to learn something, and this includes concepts that I might have been ignorant of beforehand. I certainly do not expect to absorb knowledge by osmosis with no conscious effort. The basic concept of taxonomy seems just so easy to grasp. For me, having problems with such simple concepts as this is begs the question of why has Wikipedia been created if not to introduce people to concepts that they are not aware of? Certainly I fully expect that this is not the first time that similar questions have come up in discussions among the Wiki Editors, and certainly it ties into the basic question so often now seen in society of whether or not it is better to present more exact information, or to dumb knowledge down in the presumption that others are not intellectually capable of understanding it otherwise.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Many plant articles also have a Taxonomy section—in fact it is recommended by WikiProject Plants in their style guide/article template. I don't think it's excessive jargon, and I am strictly an amateur plant and bird enthusiast. If there were a commonly used term that is synonymous, then of course there would be an alternative. But I haven't seen one. First Light (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. It appears that most/all of the Featured Articles within WikiProject Fungi also use "Taxonomy" in section headings.[1] So there are at least three WikiGroups (Birds, Plants, Fungi) that have all come to the same conclusion for the ideal/only terminology in articles about different "species", which is a taxonomic rank. First Light (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, how long does it take for a reader to find out what taxonomy means. Guidelines indicate that headings are not wikilinked in articles, and a blue heading would look untidy. I wonder if it would be better if a black wikilink could be used in the taxonomy heading, with a way (other than by colour) to indicate to viewers that it is wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I usually use "Nomenclature" if I discuss the origin of names/first descriptions, "Taxonomy" if I talk about delimiting taxa (subspecies included/excluded) or (sometimes) as catch-all, and "Systematics" for higher-level relationships. I also tend to link the pertinent term the first time it occurs in the section text (not the heading; I don't usually do section-title links except if they link to somewhere on the same page) - for nomenclature I often link the specialist term like "junior synonym" or whatnot instead because I rarely use the term "nomenclature" outside the heading.
It really depends on what is in the section text. E.g. interesting synonymies may be "nomenclature" (if their origin and description is important, if they are homonyms or such), or "taxonomy" (if they were held to be a distinct species but are now included in another). Hence it all has a tendency to boil down to "Taxonomy" or "Taxonomy and [nomenclature OR systematics]" in the articles I edit. For Muscovy Duck, there was much to say about the origin of the common names, thus I simply lumped it with the scientific nomenclature and used "Etymology" as catch-all. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely that it depends on what's in the section. I've certainly used "taxonomy", but if I expand another stub sometime, I'd be tempted to use "classification" for where it goes and "name" for any comments on the scientific and common names.
In my opinion, "taxonomy" is by no means the worst offender among technical terms in bird articles. We've got lots of rectrices and synapomorphies and leks that are linked but have no definitions. I've done this as much as anyone (as a percentage, anyway). The encyclopedia should be helpful to someone who just saw an amazing black bird with red wing patches, learned that it's called the Red-winged Blackbird, and now wants to know where it lives and what it eats and whether it will grow into a crow. Of course it's great if it's also helpful to people who want to learn things at the level of university biology. —JerryFriedman(Talk)02:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, what I think we should do is a communal discussion at WT:biology again, as this realistically is applicable to all biology articles. We can look at each option and vote/discuss thereafter. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My 2c. The word "taxonomy" is not a technical term: it is a term in regular use in the English language. I would say the same of the term "etiology" that was also used in this thread as an example of a term that was supposed to be more clearly a technical term to be avoided. I have no training in biology or epidemiology, and yet I have known the meanings of these words since I was a child. Technical terms are ones like "synapomorphy", that is not used much outside the field. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Sławomir, it is entirely possible that you were not, technically speaking, a normal child. What a genius knew at age 12 is not a good metric for what someone in the middle of the bell curve is likely to know. Wikipedia is not supposed to be written for geniuses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this is used as a source in several birds article (it's cited at least 187 times in roughly 91 articles), but we lack an article on it. Could someone create it? There's some guidance at WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide for help on this. It's currently the most-cited bird-related reference that doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}14:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The relevant guideline would be WP:NJOURNALS. I'm assuming that because it's relatively-highly cited in Wikipedia, it would accordingly be considered reliable/influential by other reliable sources, comparable in notability to say... CERN Courier or similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}16:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of it, but with 187 cites it sounds like its worth having an article on it, so I've created a stub based on what's out there on the web. If others feel strongly that it's not notable, we can always discuss that through an AfD. SP-KP (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on that. In the meantime, could you try to bring the article in line with the "ideal stub". I can make the polishing touches. For some reason google isn't working for me at the moment and I can't do much work without it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}17:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. As per the link you supplied, I've added an Infobox, but I can't work out how to italicise the title. What else would you like to see? SP-KP (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I found it on about 60 or 70 pages as "Newsletter for Birdwatchers" and wrote in a wikilink. I am not sure where the count of 91 articles comes from unless an abbreviated form is used a lot. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Right now what the article need is a better description of its scope. What exactly does it publish? Is there some kind of reviewing process, or is it more similar to a professional magazine, where the "truth burden" lies on the editors?
I think that it is a good idea to have a page for journals and other sources that have been used many times. Thank you for prompting us to improve information and wikilinks for "Newsletter for Birdwatchers". Snowman (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive
Hi,
I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include many about birds. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the heads up. Not quite sure how to proceed but some of us I guess can review and assimilate information if and how needed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't say that on ARKive; it says it at the above page, which I wrote with with their agreement, having been appointed ambassador to them by WikimediaUK. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits08:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
In the references section Archive says; "Authentication. This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible. If you are able to help please contact: arkive@wildscreen.org.uk". With a notice like this, I think that we can not simply merge Archive into the Wikipedia, as it appears to me that Archive (or the part of Archive for the Hyacinth Macaw) does not satisfy the Wiki's reliable source guidelines. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Snowman, also the expansion of the African Elephant article would have been great five years ago, but many of the bird articles are at that level of detail already if not more. There will be some bits and pieces but they are better referenced from books and journals anyway. What might be really good is if there are appropriately licenced images though. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the text in the ARKive article on the Hyacinth Macaw is referenced to multiple reliable sources; per the African Elephant example, we can lift the text, with references, directly from ARKive. Accordingly, I have done just that, by way of example. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits09:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a very reliable source at any rate. Now that I've been looking at it, doesn't seem like that great of a thing. I remember now that some ARKive entry for other birds (not inclded in the present donation), like the Iago Sparrow, also are not all that great: the standard of reading sources clearly can be lower than that on Wikipedia. All this does is add a few bits of writing and information close to the ordinary Wikipedia quality, though at least the attribution is not a trouble: and we might not get around to adding some of this otherwise. —innotata21:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd see it as a bit of a "stepping stone" type source really. Can be helpful as a base before an article really gets a good going-over for GA/FA push (which requires quite a bit more content). Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the ARKive article doesn't seem to read them very well, and I don't know what Williamson's sources are, but what is cited to Biological Invasions is contradicted by books by experts on the species like J. Denis Summers-Smith. —innotata15:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Hyacinth Macaw article now has five reference points of BirdLife International sourced via ARKive (i.e. "[[^ a b c d e "Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus): BirdLife species factsheet". BirdLife International. Retrieved 2003-04. - via ARKive")). The sourced article is only one page (see on BirdLife International). I think that it is bad science not to source this BirdLife International page directly. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
ARKive is a tertiary source, and we should use secondary sources if possible. I think this would have been of greater value five years ago, and I think they are a stepping stone on unreferenced or stubby articles, but many of our bird articles have a fair degree of appropriate referencing now. Hmmm...watching and thinking....Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I note that some information appears to have been recenlty transferred from ARKive to the Hyacinth Macaw wiki article that was added to ARKive in 2003. See the reference: "Welcome to CITES". 2003-04. Retrieved 2003-04. - via ARKive". I think that there is a possibility that out-of-date information has been transcribed from ARKive to the Wiki. Also, I note that the link to CITES provided is a link to the home page of CITES and does not contain the information sourced. Another link recently added to this article for information sourced from ARKive is a dead link. I believe that the referencing here is below standard for the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
non-theropod theories
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
An editor has removed Alan Feduccia's non-dinosaur origin for the birds from the article Bird describing it as undue weight, religious dogma [2], and just plain false, and renamed a section of the article (!) in order to avaoid having to mention his theories. He doesn't seem to understand that Feduccia is an otherwise respected expert or that wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, not the only fountain of only the TRUTH in the universe. I am not about to wage a one-man edit war against this editor. The arrtibuted POV of Feduccia should be mentioned as notable and verifiable. I assume there are other editors who value mentioning Feduccia as the last respected holdout for the Basal archosaur theory. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The theory has been pretty roundly discounted. I guess it is tricky as to how much wieght it should get as it got alot of discussion a few years ago and Feduccia was the most notable proponent. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
As regards weight, there was one sentence, mentioned as alternate, not mainstream. The deleting editor's opinion is that the minority view shouldn't be mentioned at all because it is false. I happen to most strongly agree that it is absolutely wrong, but this is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and it is quite appropriate to inform readers of alternate notable views so long as they are wp:attributed, wp:notable and wp:verifiable. Changing the name of the section "alternate theories" to "early theories" when Feduccia was publishing his views at least as recently as 1998 is a disservice to the reader. Let us continue to mention that it is a barely credited viewpoint nowadays. I agree. But also let us keep in mind what comprehensive means. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per #Newsletter for Birdwatchers above, here's a list of the most highly-cited missing journals related to birds as far as I've been able to tell. If a journals isn't bird related, just remove it from the list. If I missed any, just add it to the list.
One of my favorite bird groups, just cute. This is an adult male. The female of this species has a white supercilium, dirty brown auriculars, and a sort of smaller, dull beige-orange crown stripe.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is. In its range this bill conformation excludes other Euphonia (looks almost like some Sporophila bills). No indication that I can discern that might indicate it is an immature male.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
These are excellent candidates with great pix to expand for DYK. I will try but not sure what info I can get. DYK is a little light on biology articles at the moment. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The presence of a chestnut wash is normal for the full adult female bird of this race, brevior. By the way, the black bib is not present in the males of all races. It is absent in race crocatus.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the bird demonstrates immaturity. To name just one juvenile distinguisher (but there are others) is the still-evident juvenile flange. Further the bill color of the adults, in both sexes, is tendentially paler on the mandibular base of both mandibles, and has a blackish tip on both mandibles. So, I will hazard a guess though this is open to interpretation. In my view, the dark facial stripes are here tending to being dark black, and not a sort of smoky, duller black (female). My best guess is that this is a juvenile male.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The species is confirmed. The only co-ranging confusion species is a female S. flaviventris. However, I can discern white edges to the lateral rectrices, and while the female flaviventris usually sports a slight moustachial, it does not have this black blotchiness under the chin and on the throat. I am a bit less certain about the age of this bird. It is a male. So, it is either a young male transitioning into first alternate, or it is an adult male in basic. I suppose I might try and divine this from the date of the shot, but I don't have good information as to when the species normally breeds.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Snow, subadult is a reach. I agree that it is a male bird. From the descriptions that I have the most that I could say is that it is a male in the first two years of its life. The species reaches maturity after 4-5 years.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Snow, "a reach". Well, sort of a prosaic way of saying "a bridge too far", in others words, a mild way of saying that it is not a subadult - it just doesn't get there with the age that it shows, i.e., a reach (that implicitly falls short)! Steve Pryor (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think "its a reach" is simply incomprehensible here, because many reaches are possible, and generally one wound reach for something when it is reachable. So this cockatoo is less than about 2 years old and it will not become fully a mature bird until it is age about 4 or 5 years. So are you saying that this is an immature bird? Snowman (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Snow, beyond all the misunderstanding of my use of a colloquialism, that is exactly what I was saying. I am not always aware of the differences between the English spoken in the U.K. and of that spoken in the States (where I was born). Sorry if I caused you distress. My saying that it was a reach was a way of negating the possibility in this case. After this initial sentence, I gave you my opinion of the age of the bird, and I was very clear about it insofar as the descriptions that I have supported my conclusion. However, it must be understood the catch-all nature of the very unsatisfactory term "immature". Immature is anything not adult, and including sub-adult. I am saying, to repeat, that this is a bird that is immature, it is not sub-adult, and has maximum two years of age.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion is very welcome. I really thought that "is a reach" was implying that it was a possibility. It is a little amusing now and not distressing. I understand "a bridge too far". When you have time, would you look at bird 1255 please. Snowman (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. There are no outstanding missing IOC birds-of-paradise/Paradise names - they're all on the list as bluelinks. SP-KP (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The blue-links are redirects, so they are not articles, so the article is missing, so the article is on the list. Snowman (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from now. My priority right now is to ensure that every name published in the original IOC list is present in wikipedia and associated with the correct article. In many cases a redirect will achieve that. I'm not that bothered if the article title itself is the IOC name or another name, especially if they only differ in the case of one letter. But if you want to undertake a follow-on exercise (or even a parallel one) of rationalising wikipedia names in line with the IOC list I've got no objection to that. SP-KP (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I note that you are prompting users to attend to your list again. I think users need some explanations and assistance to do this difficult task. At the the head of the list of on the talk page of the list, I think that you should explain why you have made this list and what it is for. I think that you should explain your expectations about what is going to be achieved. I think that you should offer to help users trying to attend to these tasks by offering to answer any questions on the talk page of the list. I think that you should also explain if you expect users to update the list by removing names from the list after attending to a bird name, as several users have done already. For me is was a bad sign when no on answered my question that I put on the articles talk page on 10 May 2011. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
People have been chipping at it slowly but steadily. I think the important thing is getting it right before shuffling pages all over the place. Some are easy but some require a bit of digging about to sort out. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, names with the format "Name Bird-of-Paradise" are not IOC names, so they should not be on the list. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't think of it as "my list". It (in its original form) was simply a list of the names from the original IOC publication which aren't in wikipedia. Given that the IOC list has gained considerable traction, I think there's consensus here that we should try to complete the exercise of getting all of these names incorporated into wikipedia. As Casliber says it's being chipped away at, and I think we'll get there soon enough. My purpose in reminding people about it is just to keep it in our collective consciousness until the task is complete rather than allowing the auto-archive of this talk page to let us drift into forgetting it, that's all, no other expectations beyond that really. SP-KP (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not that difficult. There are four possibilities
Scientific name redlinked because it is a synonym for an existing article — redirect to existing article
Scientific name redlinked because it is a new IOC split — redirect to existing main article (the alternative is to write an article for the split, but many of these don't have more than a couple of lines even for the original article.)
Common name redlinked because it is an IOC synonym for an existing article — move existing article to new name, add new name to first line of text and info box
Common name redlinked because it is a new IOC split — redirect to existing main article (the alternative, again, is to write an article for the split.)
Incidentally, it's nearly a month since anyone other than me has fixed anything; I'm not complaining, but it would be quicker with more hands, even if just one or two are fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Gah, but how many end up being more complicated than at first glance - and uncover can of worms as we go. For instance see my question on fernbird talk page. Note Chatham Fernbird]] not on IOC list as species...? Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Not quite true, I've been working my way through them in spare moments - I created a few new names last week. SP-KP (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Cas, I think it has something to do with how they cluster in DNA-hybridization studies. Supposedly, and I repeat supposedly since relationships within Cossyphinae do not seem real clear even to those doing the studies, the two you mentioned, plus humeralis and caffra have been proposed as a candidate for "generic splitting", possibly with the name of Dessonornis (apparently they do not closely cluster with other Cossypha, and may be more closely related to genera such as Xenocopsychus and Pogonocichla). The Ground Robin thing might be a pre-emptive winking at changes in the common names in the case of future rearrangements (something that I think is very possible). However, here I am just guessing.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I was thinking it'd be something like that - I find it is very easy to go off on a tangent - started looking at Australopapuan Robins and found all sorts of updates and tweaks...and trying to do a mass DYK nom as well :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The use of some IOC names can be mooted, and I see a discussion has been started on the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it important that, where there is an exception, there really is a clear consensus for it, and that the IOC name is the default where there is not. Otherwise it will be chaotic. Maias (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree. The controversy over the non-standardization of English Common Names celebrated its centenary some time ago. Now, that we finally have a good chance of adopting a worldwide standard (for only English obviously), and even if we personally might have misgivings from time to time on single common names, we must simply bite the bullet, quell any personal misgivings, and support this effort! I also vote for the use of IOC indications as the default standard from now on.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Question about Great Black-backed Gulls
(I've also asked this at the Science reference desk, but I thought that I'd bring it here too, to see if you guys had any suggestions)
Yesterday, I had the chance to observe a breeding pair of Great Black-backed Gulls and their recently-fledged chick. The baby gull was walking back and forth between the birds which were obviously its parents, crying to be fed and pecking at the 'red spot' on mum and dad's beak (as they do) and it appeared as though the parents were mostly trying to ignore it, to encourage it to fly around and start finding its own food (as they do). However, there was also a third adult Great Black-backed Gull in the vicinity, the presence of which seemed to be tolerated by the breeding pair (which is unusual) and in turn, it tolerated the chick, which seemed to have decided to try begging food from another gull after having no luck with its parents, to approach and peck at its 'red spot', (again, this is unusual - it would be typical for an adult gull to peck at and chase away any unrelated chick that approached it). This got me thinking - are gulls ever known to use helpers at the nest? I've never heard of it before - but it would certainly be one explanation for the behaviour I witnessed, say if the third adult was the offspring of the pair. As far as I'm aware, there has been a pair of GBB gulls nesting in this location for several years now - and it is certainly possible that they are the same birds (gulls being long-lived, mostly-monogamous and definite creatures of habit), now old enough now to have fully-grown offspring. Any thoughts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I remember seeing a cladogram of the evolution of cooperative breeding in birds - it has happened multiple times, and I think is more common than we think. If I can remember what it was called I will try to dig it up and see what it says. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was under the impression that this sort of thing was mostly a corvid behaviour. It's not in anything I've ever read on gulls and considering the territorial and violent nature of the larger species, I'd never have expected to see something like this from them. I've watched gull colonies before and I've certainly never noticed anything like it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Bukaciński, D.; BukaciŃSka, M.; Lubjuhn, T. (February 2000). "Adoption of chicks and the level of relatedness in common gull, Larus canus, colonies: DNA fingerprinting analyses". Animal Behaviour. 59 (2): 289–299. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1298. PMID10675251.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Graves, J. A.; Whiten, A. (1980). "Adoption of Strange Chicks by Herring Gulls, Larus argentatus L.". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. 54 (3): 267–278. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1980.tb01244.x.
Brown, K. (1998). "Proximate and ultimate causes of adoption in ring-billed gulls". Animal Behaviour. 56 (6): 1529–1543. doi:10.1006/anbe.1998.0913. PMID9933551.
Oro, D.; Genovart, M. (1999). "Testing the intergenerational conflict hypothesis: Factors affecting adoptions in Audouin's gulls, Larus audouinii". Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77 (3): 433. doi:10.1139/z98-218.
There was a video I saw on YouTube ages ago (which I can't seem to find again - may not even still be there) that showed a Peace-faced Lovebird feeding an African Grey Parrot chick by regurgitation. The chick was already bigger than it was. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In aviculture, some parrot pairs or groups of different species that are kept together exhibit bonding behaviour including preening and feeding the other parrot. Snowman (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed they do. Justsomeexamples. Psittacines of various species do seem to have the ability to bond with each other. The Lovebird/Grey chick video I'm talking about was in someone's house, BTW. The Grey was in a basket and the Lovebird flew over to take a look and got begged at. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that one of the most bizarre pictures of interspecific feeding was a Northern Cardinal feeding a mass of goldfish. I first saw it in one of my ornithology textbooks. 13:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No, apparently the nest was beyond the pond. The first time the homeowner saw the behaviour, the male was flying over with a mouthful when one of the fish came up and gulped at the surface. The male took one look at the gaping orange mouth and stuffed it full of gathered insects. Didn't take the fish long to figure out a good thing when they saw it! The picture I saw had about 15 gaping fish gathered at the edge of the pond with the cardinal standing beside them with a mouthful of bugs trying to figure out who to feed first. Wild! MeegsC | Talk19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Are Grey Herons one of those species that sometimes drop bait (e.g. bits of bread) in the water to bring the fish to the surface? I seem to remember reading somewhere that they do. I know that the Herring Gull has definitely been observed doing that (try begging for food from one of those if you're a fish and see how that turns out for you!). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A number of external links have appeared in a template to Arkive. See this addition to the Indian Pond Heron page. These do not seem to me to be consistent with WP:EL as such information on Arkive would be expected to be found on the Wikipedia when pages are developed. I think these external links are excessive, they take viewers away from, the Wikipedia, and I think they should be removed. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am mostly in agreement, although I think these links would be acceptable if Wikipedia doesn't already contain a suitable image of the animal. Adding hundreds of external links is not the proper way to facilitate outreach to academic institutions. Especially when the media is damaged by a huge watermark of the site's name. This being said, I don't think this page is the proper place to bring up the issue. Have you considered discussing this with User:Pigsonthewing, who is in charge of this GLAM project? ThemFromSpace11:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is the correct page for discussion for external links put on bird articles. I would hope that User Pigsonthewing is watching this page following his communications above; nevertheless, I have informed him of this discussion on his talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have also informed a member of WP:Spam to advance the discussion here and hopefully to address the external links added to non-bird pages and other language Wikipedieas. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We do not avoid linking to sites because we fear "they take viewers away from, the Wikipedia". The purpose of the links is not to link to "information" but - as made clear in the linking template - media which Wikipedia does not have. that seems to me to be entirely consistent with WP:EL, especially given ARKive's good standing. While I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, I am not "in charge" of the project; it's an initiative of Wikimedia UK, who have tasked me, in that role, with adding such links, as you can read on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which states "Links normally to be avoided: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think that this implies that ARKive should not be external links, and that this is for articles with or without a current image. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Snowmanradio, it doesn't provide a unique resource. The media should already be on the Wikipedia articles (which is why I'd be ok with a link there if the article has no photos), and the statistics should be incorporated into the article. ARKive is appropriate as a reference, but not as an EL. ThemFromSpace12:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The presence of a video on ARKive is irrelevant to the merits of ARKive as an external link. When the wiki content is more developed (on Commons and the language wikis), then a video could be shown on the wiki article and several could be available on commons. It would be preferable if you would upload the video of the Pond Heron to commons. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your interesting suggestion, but I have no intention of breaching others' copyright. Your claim that "The presence of a video on ARKive is irrelevant to the merits of ARKive as an external link" is utterly false. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits12:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't link to every external site that has a photograph or video of an animal, if we did our EL sections would be a mile long. Unless the photographs or videos are particularly good, and we don't have anything comparable in the article or on commons, we don't link there. This site has large watermarks over all of its photos. That is reason enough to avoid linking there, as there are other sites that offer high-quality photos of animals without the watermark. ThemFromSpace12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Off course, I think that a conscientious Wikipedian would ask the copyright holder of a photograph or video to change the copyright to a Commons friendly copyright. I have wrote to copyright holders scores of times and frequently following my request a kind author has changed the licence, so that I can show an his work on the wiki. The presence of videos on ARKive does not give ARKive a unique resource that could not be found on a Wiki article or Commons. I believe indiscriminate adding external links to directed to ARKive is against the wiki guidelines, and I have not yet seen an external link to ARKive that I would consider an exception and worthy to be kept. Is being Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive a Conflict of Interest? Do any editors have any other associations with ARKive? Snowman (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to add my 2p. I'm one of the board members of Wikimedia UK and am involved in various outreach projects (but not particularly this one). Obviously it is a community decision whether any particular external link meets WP:EL and the fact that a particular link is added as part of an outreach project doesn't by itself mean it should be included or excluded.
However, I do think that quite a lot of ARKive pages have enough material on to be valid external links. If you look at Hyancinth Macaw for instance there are 5 high-quality videos taken from the BBC Natural History Unit which are a useful supplement to the article. It wouldn't be easy for a volunteer to produce free media to replicate those videos and I think ti's exactly the kind of thing we should be linking to. I have never taken the view that we should ban external links that contain material that could theoretically be made free and I don't believe that's the right interpretation of our policies.
Of course in an ideal world for Wikimedians, people like ARKive and the BBC would simply release all their media under free licenses. However, that is not where we are at the minute. Collaborations like this one are an important step in persuading institutions that Wikipedia isn't scary, they can work with us constructively, and we aren't simply interested in grabbing media files. Effective partnerships with institutions will result in a much bigger payoff for the Wikimedia movement in the long run...
My opinion is simply that we should see if the ARKive article has anything worthwhile: most probably do (as at House Sparrow and Iago Sparrow), some probably not. If there are places where Wikipedia's media compare well to ARKive's, there likely shouldn't be a link; texts reviewed by species experts on ARKive should be valuable links. —innotata16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A similar issue came up recently at WikiProject Plants. The linked content (photos and drawings in that case) added a great deal of reliable information for someone interested in learning more about that plant. We should put the reader's interests first. If a particular ARKive article helps the reader, then a link should be added, determined on a case-by-case basis, like Innotata suggests. First Light (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets be clear what the tests for EL are. The Wiki is not a links farm. The Wiki is not a substitute of a search engine. The test we have been discussing is: Does the external link provide a resource that is not provided on an article if it is a well developed article? If we added external links to sites that provided a bit more information that the current article then we would end up with a links farm on every stub. Snowman (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who looked at the Hyacinth Macaw on Commons would know that Commons includes 30 images of the bird's head, plus 95 images of the bird showing more than its head, plus 3 videos. It is clearly nonsense that ARKive is a resource of media for this species that is not provided by Commons or the Wiki. The material on the Wiki and Commons is creative commons and I see absolutely no reason for the Wiki to give external links to images with restrictive copyright licences and large watermarks. Snowman (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Unless there is genuine extra value, free content, or no free alternative, we should discourage links that just add more of the same and link to commercial or non-free sites Jimfbleak - talk to me?18:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC).
I note that my edit removing the external link to ARKive has been reverted by User Pigsonthewing; see his edit. At the present time ARKive for the this species says "Authentication: This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible. If you are able to help please contact: arkive@wildscreen.org.uk". See the references for Hyacinth Macaw on ARKive. Are we having external links imposed on bird pages? Snowman (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a policy basis for refusing a link to a site because it has non-free content. I agree with First Light that the reader's interests should come first: non-free or watermarked content may well be in the reader's interest in learning about a given topic. WP:EL mentions as suitable sites that contain encyclopedic content that cannot be integrated into the article because of copyright concerns. The media on ARKive pages obviously fit this requirement: calling for it to be illegally copied does not change that situation. Snowman, you write above "I see absolutely no reason for the Wiki to give external links to images with restrictive copyright licences and large watermarks." - you're entitled to your own opinion, but until you can get it into policy that these things are forbidden, it's just your opinion. "A conscientious Wikipedian would ask the copyright holder of a photograph or video to change the copyright to a Commons friendly copyright" - of course these negotiations are going on. This project is ARKive taking their first steps in free content. I'm one of the WMUK Directors who negotiated the arrangement. To suggest that I or Andy have a conflict of interest is absurd: many Wikimedians are doing work with partner organisations and this is increasingly how the community works: you'd have to rid WP and its sister projects of an awful lot of high-quality stuff if that were against policy. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that there is a more diplomatic way to say that and in such a way that uses quotations in a better context. It is clear from the above discussion that no one was "calling for anything to be illegally copied ...". The thread of the discussion is that I was suggesting that authors of images could be asked if they would change copyrights to Commons friendly licences, and this is what I had intended to imply when I made my initial comment not being aware that people would readily misinterpret it. I am aware that external links to copyrighted media files are valid in some circumstances, but I maintain that such links are not in line with wiki guidelines when Commons has an equivalent range of "free" images on a particular topic. I think that it was perfectly legitimate to ask about COI, and I was doing this without suggesting that there was any COI. WP:LINKSTOAVOID seems clear to me. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There are good videos of the Hyacinth Macaw on Internet bird collection - a long standing external link on the Hyacinth Macaw page. These images do not have large watermarks. An external link to ARKive has recently been added back to the Hyacinth Macaw article, where the videos have been somewhat spoilt owning to a large "ARKive" watermark. I do not know why ARKive would want to watermark the BBC videos that they have like that. Also Commons has a variety of images and three vidoes, so I propose removing the external link to ARKive. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I was reverted by Andy on Coco de Mer. To me this is a textbook case of a link that offers no extensive coverage beyond what we offer on our site. Andy, for now I'm asking if you could stop linking to this site until we get a consensus on whether they are appropriate. I think the outreach project will run just as fine without the external links. ThemFromSpace13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Re-think: some of the videos made by the BBC on ARKive are excellent and have sound, so I think these could be regarded as a high quality video resource, but not the only resource of this type. I think that this is in contrast to the ARKive text, which is almost certainly not a resource that the Wiki would not have on developed articles. I have looked at more of the animal BBC videos on ARKive and have began to appreciate their quality. I do not know whey these videos have an ARKive watermark and not a BBC watermark, and I wonder why BBC do not publish them all on the BBC website and avoid the ARKive watermark. I expect the BBC use some of the finest photographic equipment available. In the case of the Hyacinth Macaw, I think that the videos without watermarks on the Internet Bird Collection are also excellent and I prefer these to the ARKive videos. I have added an external link on the Great Northern Loon Wiki article to link the only ARKive video of this species. I have linked the ARKive video page directly. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
ARKive Template
A template in the format in a box has appeared on some bird articles. It says:
"This article incorporates material from the ARKive fact-file "Hyacinth Macaw", which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but not under the GFDL." Snowman (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles also have an external link to ARKive, and references that end "... via ARKive". I think that ARKive has become too prominent in some articles. See Hyacinth Macaw on 26 July 2011, where ARKive is mentioned multiple times. It seems to me that plastering articles with ARKive templates and wikilinks is not restrained at Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. When you originally raised the ARKive issue, I felt you were over-reacting, but if we now have prominent mentions in articles of special licences for content from certain categories of contrbutor, it feels like we're crossing a line. SP-KP (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"This article uses text donated by Wildscreen from their ARKive project, under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. For details, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive."
I have got a clear message here, and I am complaining about the high visibility of ARKive on some bird articles and also talk pages. These ARKive notices appear to have been added to bird pages without prior negotiation on this page. Why have external links to ARKive usually been put at the top of the external links list (below the signpost boxes to Wikispecies and Commons)? Why should high visibility ARKive boxes and other ARKive material be imposed on bird pages? Snowman (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have concerns too - one comparison is with articles improved on the GLAM collaboration with he British Museum - so see Talk:Hoxne_Hoard. However, what happens if we (say) buff and copyedit Hyacinth Macaw to GA or FA? And the verbatim text disappears? As well, what I find is some webpages like this one and IUCN have secondary sources which I go and investigate and often read and insert a fuller account from that source. Do we then remove the box as the text is gone? Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems particularly nuts considering we already reference BirdLife International and the IUCN Red List on many (most?) articles — and now (looking at Hyacinth Macaw anyway) they will apparently say "via ARKive" after those references. Huh? Why not link directly to the references themselves? MeegsC | Talk01:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It's probably best to have this discussion all in one place: Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive is the page for discussing the collaboration project.
MeegsC: Snowman has explained the answer in terms of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. When editors has not checked the reference themselves but are copying the citation from ARKive, they need to reflect that. It also means that we can identify which parts of an article have been improved as part of the collaboration project. If an article evolves so there are no more "via ARKive.org" references, then that would suggest we could remove the template.
Jimfbleak: There's scope for legitimate debate over how to attribute ARKive, and to recognise the difference between the legal status of that text and Wikipedia's licence. The template is one constructive way to do that. By all means weigh in on whether the template is needed, but treating it as "spam" is incorrect.
Martin, that was kind of my point! Long before the ARKive project became involved with the Hyacinth Macaw page, there were already links to the BirdLife International and IUCN pages. Now those links both say "via ARKive". Why? MeegsC | Talk02:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Not Andy, I'm not. Here's a link from before you, or anyone else from ARKive, starting editing this article. Note that both BirdLife International's species information page and the IUCN Red List page are already referenced. As I asked before, I'm just wondering why both now say "via ARKive", as they were clearly part of this article before!!
Yes, it seems that there is a lot of experience about using attribution templates, and some of the guidelines for using them are at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution. It seems that these templates are optional, and that all the necessary attribution can be satisfactorily achieved with adequate in-line citations. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
A comparison of using Creative Commons text from elsewhere is when the content from another language wiki is used. I used the Dutch Wiki (translating with some difficulty) when I started the en wiki article for Vogelpark Avifauna and followed the instructions about how to tag the new en Wiki article. The only tag that I required was on the talk page; see Talk:Vogelpark Avifauna, where there is a non-promotional information box. I looked at the references used to make the Dutch page and made sure that they were valid for the en wiki article. Should I have done anything else to document the referencing? It was some time ago when I made the Vogelpark Avifauna article, so I hope I have recalled these details correctly. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As seen on Skull on 2004, a disclaimer was written directly on anatomy articles:
"This article is based on an entry from the 1918 edition of Gray's Anatomy, which is in the public domain. As such, some of the information contained herein may be outdated. Please edit the article if this is the case, and feel free to remove this notice when it is no longer relevant.
It seems to me that Anatomy templates (or disclaimer messages) have been put on anatomy pages when anatomy articles were started based on a PD version of Grey's Anatomy, and it is actively encouraged to update anatomy articles using modern sources and remove the Grey's disclaimer when the article has been sourced from elsewhere. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, ARKive is not used to create bird articles, often being used in conjunction with a Wiki article of a well known animal. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Question
Begging pardon if this has been mentioned already, or if I'm missing something obvious: is there anything stopping editors from rewriting the ARKive material in their own words, and simply using a footnote to reference the facts? Much like other reliable sources are referenced? Without the template? That would be a win/win—article is improved, ARKive gets some credit through a footnote. No template in needed. First Light (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
(Sorry to butt in, but I'm addressing this question rather than the discussion below). You're very welcome, in fact encouraged, to do this. It would indeed be a win all round. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The edit history of the Hyacinth Macaw shows that three regular editors of bird pages have deleted the {{ARKive attribution}} template (probably with the view that the normal style of in-line referencing and/or adequate edit summaries will suffice), and I note that each of these three edits has been undone by a participant of the ARKive project.Snowman (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for accidentally putting the wrong number of undone edits. My error was over the first undone edit which was to revert an external link and not the ARKive attribute template. There were only two edits that put back the attribution template. To retract the accidental error I have put a strike though the whole of the edit containing the accidental mistake. I have written a corrected comment below. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The edit history of the Hyacinth Macaw shows that two regular editors of bird pages have deleted the {{ARKive attribution}} template and I note that each of these two edits has been undone by a participant of the ARKive project; see this edit and this edit. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes; the first edit I reverted falsely described the link as spam. I reverted the second, whose edit summary falsely claimed "We don't have attribution like this elsewhere", after discussion at the GLAM/ARKive project page revealed precedent for such an attribution text, in the existence of several other such templates in Category:Attribution templates. As a participant in that debate, you should be aware of this. I also gave my reasoning in my edit summaries. I am unclear what is significant about editors being "regular editors of bird pages", even though I am one myself; please can you explain? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits11:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It is a statement of fact. Nevertheless, I think that I could have written it by saying "two editors" or "two administrators". Snowman (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that attribution templates have been used for a long time. I have found something that sounds useful at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution. This suggests that attribution templates are optional. It suggests that they are more useful when there is a lot CC text from a source website. It seems that an in-line {{citation-attribution}} template can suffice especially when there is a small portion of text added to a Wiki article form a CC source. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This years AOU Changes have been released. Looks like the new world warblers have had another major restructure, the Common Moorhen/Common Gallinule (Eurasia vs. NA), the Kentish/Snowy Plover, and the Yellow-throated/Bahama Warbler have been split, among major changes. I've been starting to synch up the IOC/AOU lists to make appropriate changes. I'll use the AOU list to change the regional lists as appropriate, but species accounts and taxonomic lists I'll leave to the IOC lists. In that light, for example, I've created a new Bahama Warbler page, but have left it in Dendroica, since the IOC has yet to recognize the genus the AOU has inserted it into (Setophaga). I'll change the regional lists, but I'll wait on the species accounts and tax lists. My next venture is to split the Common Moorhen/Common Gallinule. Any guidance will be helpful........Any other comments will help as I make changes over the next couple weeks.........Pvmoutside (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the IOC isn't our authority for anything but English names, I'd give a choice of genus names in the species accounts, e.g., "Dendroica or Setophaga", and likewise for Wilsonia. Unless you or someone else here has good reason to believe that the consensus will come out (or better, has come out) one way or the other.
The IOC generally falls in line with the AOU indications. They are just slow on the uptake. I would probably wait until they either align their taxonomy on the update pages, or until the SACC gives its opinion on this, which, if they have not already and I have not looked, they certainly will since many of the species involved are seasonal migrants into South America. V. http://jboyd.net/Taxo/List30.html#parulidae for a discussion of the literature being considered and its implications though some now mooted given the AOU positions. Steve Pryor (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever seen a Herring Gull eating bats?
i.e. those flying mouse critters - not the sports equipment. Take a look - seems to be real. Just something vaguely interesting I heard about today that I thought you guys might also find vaguely interesting. Clever little carnivore. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It must take a certain internal constitution to swallow living (and presumably struggling) things with teeth and claws alive. That said, years ago I saw a gull bloodlessly regurgitating a crushed coke can that had somehow ended up down there. A gull's crop is truly a marvel of nature. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Years ago in British Birds, there was a fairly gruesome picture of a moribund Bonxie found on a UK beach with a huge growth on its chest; it was presumed by the finders that the tumor was what was killing the bird. But when a vet (I think) did an autopsy following its death, they discovered that the "growth" was actually the beak of a cuttlefish that was chewing its way out. It didn't make it, and neither did the skua. Grim! MeegsC | Talk13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
A Google search for "great black backed gull" brings up an image from this page on the first page of results. Scroll about 2/3 of the way down - you'll know it when you see it. Gruesome, huh? I don't think that the gull could've survived that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the general project opinion about the inclusion of Phoenix (mythology) in our remit? Do we want to include mythical birds as well as real ones? Right now, this article has our banner on its talk page; I would argue that it shouldn't be there... MeegsC | Talk20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes - interesting question. I have always thought of the project as having fuzzy borders to its remit and have sometimes had to make arbitrary decisions about whether an article should be so tagged. The 'Legendary birds' category has many more examples. I would tend to be inclusive with Phoenix, but consider it peripheral and not part of the project's core business. Maias (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose - it becomes more important as the article is further improved and (hopefully) gets more out-of-universe discussion on what real bird it might have been based on...so I'd place a template on the talk page. Ditto Roc and others....Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
How's about some of the articles in Category:Fictional birds (if most of them aren't already included anyway)? I was originally thinking of the bird Pokemon, many of which are based upon real birds (but it seems that most Pokemon don't have their own separate articles any more) - but there's many, many more articles included there that could maybe be semi-relevant. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a bird topic that is appropriately included in WP Birds. Some of the images on the Phoenix article reminded me of some birds that put their eggs in the ground in the warm ash around volcanoes, where there is enough heat to incubate them - there is a name for that. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Megapodes incubate their eggs by burying them, but I don't think any birds use volcanic heat specifically, and I don't think incubation explains the story of the phoenix. —innotata23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have heard of one bird species that lives on New Britain in the region of New Guinea that uses hot ashes around a volcano; see Lost Land of the Volcano episode 3. I was trying to identify this bird when I wrote that part of the article. The egg in the TV programme is bit larger than a goose egg. I would like to write the species into the article, if anyone knows it. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
"For instance, approximately 53,000 Melanesian megapodes have been estimated to visit a single volcanic site in New Britain." (Referring to birds laying their eggs at geothermal sources. I can give you more information from this book if you like.)
Jones, Darryl; Crome, Frank H. J. (2003), "Megapodes", in Christopher Perrins, ed. (ed.), The Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds, Firefly Books, pp. 192–195, ISBN1-55297-777-3{{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
Incidentally, if you're going to mention megapodes in the Phoenix article, I'm sure it goes without saying that you have a source speculating on the connection. Or did I misunderstand which article you meant? Also incidentally, the phoenix article needs a great deal of work. —JerryFriedman(Talk)00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to write the species in Lost Land of the Volcano. Are there any other bird species that also do this on New Briton? I am not writing this species in the Phoenix article. I see that the Melanesian Megapode article is a short stub, so this would be a good candidate for a DYK with the hook about geothermal egg incubation. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry I misunderstood which article you were talking about. According to the Avibase checklist for New Britain, the Melanesian Megapode is the only megapode on that island, and megapodes are the only birds that don't incubate with their body heat (see references in Megapode). So it seems no other birds do this on New Britain. —JerryFriedman(Talk)14:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Jerry, I know what you intend saying and you are right in saying that Megapodes are the only bird group that bury their eggs, totally abandon them thereafter, and allow them to be incubated by non-Megapode heat, be it geothermic, or be it heat-generating biotic processes in decomposition of compost, etc. However, it would not be technically true to say that other bird groups do not avail themselves of non-biotic heat for incubation, e.g., many Anseriformes during the day limit their care to rearranging down feathers exposed to radiant heat, and truly brood during the night. Yes, I know that I am splitting hairs!Steve Pryor (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Robins
Magnificent cluster of Australasian robin DYKs on the front page today. Congrats to Casliber and others involved in expanding them. Maias (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Sabine's Sunbird the other one is already split out as Daurian Jackdaw. The new genus Coloeus is an obvious redirect to Jackdaw, although I have not seen any sources call the genus the genus of Jackdaws...but I haven't really looked.Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Good luck! I can think of three or four possibles, however, to hazard a guess among those is simply an exercise in conjecture. In this particular case, given the absolute paucity of descriptive information for fledgelings of most passeriformes, you would need somebody with special knowledge, and that had probably seen such a nest during field work.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
In this locale (near Pretoria)you really only have to deal with three confusion species. The ranging Cisticola save C. aberrans are all streaky-backed - so forget them. C. aberrans itself does not have the russet feather edges in the wings, and it does have a rufous crown - so forget him. This leaves the other ranging Prinia, P. flavicans, however, flavicans does not have these russet feather edges and it does not have this russet rump where if we could see the crissum of this bird we would see that it is also russet (and that of flavicans is whitish). Prinia subflava. The ranging race here should be pondoensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, not too sure that the additional photo is of a juvenile. In any case, trying to sex these birds is extremely difficult. The same might be said of immatures that no longer have a juvenile flange. The book on the adult alternate nominate male has it that the supercilium is broad and creamy colored, and the russet color more extensive on the crissum and lower flanks, the tail shorter than the non-breeding male, and the bill is black including the bill base. The adult female is pretty much identical to the non-breeding male (i.e. duller, less flank rufousness, and black bill but with a light-colored lower mandibular base). The immature bird is supposed to resemble the basic adults but with a light yellowish wash ventrally. However, race pondoensis is duller than most other races usually, breeding or not. Now, the photo was shot during what is reported to be their breeding season. The bird does not seem to have a yellowish wash ventrally (that would indicate immaturity, however, it must be noted that the species description applies to the nominate race). If we presume that the description of these very subtle differences can be applied also to race pondoensis, then my best guess would be that this is an adult female.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is a Corella. Which one is the problem. Without having good vision of the bill conformation it is sheer conjecture.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The same editor created the Long-billed Corella article on the same day, and made edits only to that article and this picture. You can see the tip of quite a long bill just extending past one of the cage bars. But I'd agree with Steve that it's a pretty bad picture for ID purposes. MeegsC | Talk21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
True that, however, though the editor cited may have had special knowledge those viewing this photo are not privy to this information and are called on only for the purpose of vetting a bird photo for what the photo itself furnishes. While I allow that the Little Corella can be safely eliminated on this basis, the same can not be said for the Long-billed Corella, and the Western Corella which are difficult to separate even when you have good photos.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a typical juvenile teneriffae palmensis if accepting the split. As to if it is split, well, it depends on which tax authority one wishes to follow. The HM does not split it. I have read the literature and consider it a good split, but that is just my opinion.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Commons has not got the split, so I have categorised it as a subspecies of the Blue Tit there. I presume that DNA analysis is needed to be certain of this split, as the taxa seem quite similar except for the colour of feathers on the crown. I think that it is the first juvenile of its taxa on Commons. Snowman (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to copy all the CC texts from ARKive into subpages of the relevant bird articles? or a sample of them to assist the assessment of ARKive text added to the main Wiki articles. It might also help to track changes on ARKive. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Do any of you have a photo of someone measuring a bird's culmen? I'd like to add it to the Beak article (which I've been working on) in place of the current picture. MeegsC | Talk15:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! I've left a message with one of the photographers who took several appropriate pictures... MeegsC | Talk23:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Birds for identification - returned from the archives (2)
As I recall it was already labeled as a female when I reviewed it. My opinion and reasoning is known. If someone wants to call it a female and not motivate it, then so be it, and I won't lose any sleep over it.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
IOC name changes
I'm playing around with synching up IOC English names as I have time. Most moves are working well.....however a couple are giving me issues. No big deal right now, as the ones I found so far eliminate dashes. I'm sure they'll be more complicated ones later. So, right now, I'm locked from moving all the Piping-guans to Piping Guan and the Brush-turkeys to Brushturkey. Can someone move these articles, or let me know if this doesn't warrant the time, and I'll move on.
Changing taxonomy using the IOC classification is less clearcut I'm assuming reading the posts. I've been deferring to the North and South American Committees of the AOU, the African Bird Club Checklist, the Birds Australia Checklist and the British Ornithologist's Union Checklist for guidance, as well as the IOC. Since the African Bird Club has indicated their ageement to standardize on the IOC, any objection to splitting the Ostrich into Common Ostrich and Somali Ostrich? I've split them into their own articles.
Also the AOU and the IOC has split the Snowy Plover from the Kentish Plover and the Common Gallinue from the Common Moorhen. I've split the new names out (Snowy Plover, Common Gallinue), but left the original articles intact except for a reference of the AOU split (Kentish Plover, Common Moorhen), until more review committees make their determinations. Let me know if I should approach differently.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A significant misunderstanding and in direct conflict with the information provided in the intro of Common Ostrich, Somali Ostrich and Ostrich: IOC is not and never has been the standard for taxonomy on wikipedia. IOC is our standard for English names. The frontpage defines it clearly (well, I hope it does, since I wrote it) under Taxonomy and references:
"Scientific names and classification are based on evidence rather than a specific list. There is no single authority to rely on; no one list can claim to be the list... The preferred standard for English common bird names is the IOC."
Due to time restraints my participation in this project will be limited (at least for a period) and if others believe we should change so IOC also is our standard for taxonomy, it is a possibility, though one I would warn against. In the case of the ostrich, I believe it is sensible to split it into two, but not because IOC advocates it. Because genetic evidence supports it and reveals a quite deep split (see this, this and this). If you skip the IOC sentence, you could add "The Somali Ostrich has traditionally been treated as a subspecies of the Ostrich, but the former is morphologically and ecologically distinct, and genetic evidence supports its treatment as a separate species" (or something like that + appropriat wiki links). However, I would argue against splitting the Common Ostrich further. This is suggested by the authors of the most recent article and IOC has Southern Ostrich among their candidates. Since members of the northern and southern clade hybridize freely, it would not be an easy split to accept under the biological species concept. As far as I know, similar unrestricted hybridization has not been shown in Somali versus remaining. • Rabo³ • 14:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
On a related issue, I urge everybody to be careful when changing taxonomy since this often require additional changes within existing articles: [3] (plumage + distribution update needed w. split of Colombia) & [4] (not in the Amazon). • Rabo³ • 15:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have also reverted this. Please see the taxonomic section, which explains the issue of Roraiman versus Foothill (they're not synonymous, despite the identical scient. name). IOC follows version #2 described in the taxonomic section, but the presently available evidence doesn't support this (despite being based on the few samples available to Robbins in 2001, his SACC proposal presents a good summary of the vocal variations; König made some mistakes in 1999 and partially repeated them in 2008). If you have made other copy and paste moves like the page started at Roraiman Screech Owl (was a copy of Foothill Screech-owl; just with name change), please follow the instructions at WP:CPMV, which allows merging history. • Rabo³ • 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on Roramian Screech Owl. There are a couple others. I'll get them changed back. Looks like taxonomy is a bit more complicated than the copy and paste moves I began doing a week ago. I'm getting to be a little more careful as I am getting a better understanding the taxonomy.
A couple of questions on Francolins/Spurfowls......looks like someone stated moving over the genus names (some species names adopted with new genusus, some not). I ended up completing them all for consistency, although looking at the taxonomy, some of the genus names have not been adopted yet and are still in Francolinus. Care to share any info?
Lastly, Grey-breasted Partridge was also pretty confusing. The easy move was moving White-faced Hill-partidge into Grey-breasted Partridge, (move button locked, need to ask for an admin move). The difficult piece was the Grey-breasted Partridge name was shared with the Arborophila sumatrana complex which everyone is now splitting into 3 species (Sumatran, Roll's and Malaysian) no longer needing to use Grey-breasted Patridge for sumatrana complex, freeing it up for the White-faced Hill-partridge change. I've split them since everyone else has. You agree with the changes on this one?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Several users have been updating article names to IOC English names. Taxonomy change are much more complicated and all relevant information should be assessed and in particular IOC taxonomy should not be used in isolation. I think this discussion is best on the WP Bird talk page (or copied to there). Snowman (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
A new page has been made from the redirect at Snowy Plover. In view of the confusion the editor has expressed in updating taxonomy pages, I would be grateful to know if there is any evidence to treat the new page as a new species page, a new subspecies page, or to explain controversy. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad....Quail should have been written in smaller case. I can't correct, can you or an admin help out????....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)BTW, I'm also reverting the Quail disambig. Didn't realize there were sooo many articles attached to it. Once I get the Quail page back, I'll broaden it to Galliformes and add some things about domestication. hunting and aviculture. That should help clarify things I hope.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the above questions are about specific taxonomic changes (not just names), I am not sure they are of general interest. Unless we change to using IOC as our taxonomic standard too, but IOC taxonomy versus English names have been discussed before (here and here, among other places) with no one being pro such a move. Replies to the specific taxonomic questions about francolins and Arborophila are on my talk page, but the general summary, relevant to the entire project and matching earlier discussions on WP:BIRD and related pages, is: If the wiki taxonomy matches the IOC taxonomy (wiki taxonomy isn't changed just because of IOC), the IOC English name is the main English name that should be used on wiki. When the taxonomy matches, you need a very good argument to have it placed on another English name than the one used by IOC (see e.g. Talk:Tasmanian Nativehen#Nomenclature). • Rabo³ • 15:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Taxonomy, but since these questions weren't on my talk page, I'll add a comment here: Snowy versus Kentish Plover is a pretty clear split (long overdue) and I can't think of any major argument for keeping them together. The delimination of Phasianidae and its subgroups, mentioned indirectly in Quail and elsewhere, is difficult and not entirely resolved. I've considered updating Phasianidae and the associated New World quail every time I've come across them, but the very large number of changes this would require has made me hesitate (if you've been to Gambia or Cameroon on a birdwatching trip, you can likely cross off this family on your list!). I certainly won't have the time for Phasianidae+associated pages until 2012 and admittedly hope these issues have been dealt with by others before that. • Rabo³ • 18:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Cockatoo fun
I got Cockatoo scheduled to go on the mianpage on Aug 20th - and then stumbled over this recent study, a manuscript version of which is freely available at [5]. Fascinating stuff - the Palm Cockatoo is actually in the white cockatoo subfamily, and the Galah and Gang Gang are sister taxa (and the authors hint that maybe they are better in one genus rather than two). Am happy to add the study to the article. Question is, is the study robust enough to "trump" previous research and rejig the cladogram...? Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably not until it's actually published. Right now, it's been accepted, but not published, if I'm reading the comments correctly. MeegsC | Talk13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have difficulty in believing that the Palm Cockatoo is in the white cockatoo subfamily, going on the physical differences. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
it has been published, says Molecular phylogenetics and evolution Volume 59, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 615-622....@snowman, structurally the Palm Cockatoo is very different in body shape to the Calyptorhynchus and more like the stocky white cockatoos. Anyway, I am not good on genetics so was interested in Kim van der linde and dysmorodrepanis and others have to say. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That quote you gave does not support your claim. The quote says that the Palm Cockatoo "is more like the white cockatoos", and not "is one of the white cockatoo sub-family". The Palm Cockatoo's beak is a lot different to a white cockatoo's beak. I think that the paper for publications does have some new conclusions for the article and that the cladogram in the article is out-of-date and should be removed from the article. Can you postpone the appearance of the Cockatoo article on the main page? Snowman (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I read through the salient points of the manuscript, and the argumentation does seem compelling in my opinion. Once one gets beyond the understandable perplexity that certain of these taxa, considered on gross morphology and on anatomical considerations, particularly of the bill and its mechanics, have such different phenotypic expression, is really not so astonishing considering that natural selection for the requirements of niche-occupation is well known. The study does seem serious.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the Palm Cockatoo's lineage is monotypic over the last 19.3 million years (approx), and this started before the divergence of the traditional white cockatoos. I am not exactly sure where one might put the cut-off for a sub-family; perhaps before or after the divergence of the Palm Cockatoo. However, I am not convinced that the one paper should totally overturn a traditional apple-cart. How is a sub-family defined? I think that the appearance of the Cockatoo article on the main page should be postponed. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I substantially agree, indeed, I think the manuscript is still up for peer-review. Of course, we all know that when we speak of the why, the wherefore, and the when of deeming taxa of whatever level distinctively open to being associable, including subgenera, subfamilies, tribes, etc., that we are always basing on varying degrees of subjectivity (obviously one attempts to objectivize!) in our interpretations. In the last couple of decades, usually, the underpinning turns around the degree of genetic variance. However, where to draw the line is always the sticking point. When is any taxon different enough genetically to be considered something else from another closely related, and therefore needful of being classified differently? We always do these things in finality basing the judgments on accepted convention and persuasion.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that the paper treats the Cockatiel as a separate monotypic linage that started about 22.2 million years ago, but treats the Palm Cockatoo diverging 19.3 million years ago as part of the white cockatoos. The two dates here have large and overlapping 95% confidence intervals, that do not look significantly different to me. In fact, the linage of the Budgie in this paper has a commencement date of 33.5 mya with a 95% confidence interval that overlaps with three of the early splits of the cockatoo group. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I would like to see the "Cockatoo" article on the main page, but not if new information suggests amendments. It might be a while before the dust settles. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I know, we have many bird articles that can go on the mainpage in the meantime, and we have the blurb already written so Cockatoo can be easily nominated in the future. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It has been peer-reviewed; "Accepted Manuscript" (that's the final version you get back when they're ready to publish it). Except for a few minor aesthetic differences (e.g., no line count), it has also been published. All borders in phylogeny vs. taxonomy are arbitrary: There is no entirely or even largely accepted rule stating when two groups should be separated in different families, subfamilies, genera, species, etc, based on genetic–or for that matter morphologic–differences. How does this paper stand up against others that have been published; Quite well, I'd say. Most of the other papers currently used in the taxonomic section of cockatoo are essentially aimed at the position and delimination of the parrot families, and their sampling (in genes and species) reflect this "higher" aim. Others use outdated techniques (e.g., the protein sequencing in Christidis et al. 1991 and Adams et al 1984) or rely on a single gene. The latter is the case in Brown and Toft 1999, which is the main basis for the current placement of the Palm Cockatoo as basal (the wiki sentence "...Palm Cockatoo is in its own genus Probosciger and is descended from the earliest offshoot within the cockatoo family"). The one hesitation I have is the thesis Astuti 2004, but this is apparently also based on a single gene. Has anyone here actually seen the entire thesis? I haven't. The link in the reference section of cockatoo to Astuti 2004 barely equals a normal abstract. It only has one sentence about the Palm Cockatoo (underlining mine; "The tribe Calyptorhyncini consisting of Probosiger and Calyptorhynchus was paraphyletic and genus Calyptorhynchus was likely diverged earlier than Probosciger"), and that also conflicts with the basal placement found in Brown and Toft 1999. In summary, White et al. 2011 isn't perfect, but when it comes to the placement of the species within the cockatoo family, it is superior to other things that have been published. • Rabo³ • 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made some minor fixes to the Quail page so it makes a little more sense. I've then re-created the Old World quail page since now it has a little more significance. Let me know what you think...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
PROPOSAL TO AMEND COMMON NAME USAGE
This topic has come up in the past, but I don't think it was ever resolved. At least, not satisfactorily. There are examples where, as in the case of "Gunnison Grouse", the IOC uses a name for an endemic species that is not in agreement with the regional authority (AOU in this case). The result is that Wikipedia Project Birds looks wildly out of touch and on the road to irrelevance. Why should Wikipedia use an English name for a bird that practically no one in the English-speaking country the bird lives in uses, or has even heard of?
I STRONGLY suggest that Wikipedia Project Birds adopt the following policy: "Wikipedia ProjectBirds follows the IOC common name for a species when its name is in dispute (i.e., two or more regional authorities disagree). When not in dispute, common names follow those used by regional authorities." Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Michael. The question you are asking in the final sentence of the first paragraph is the exact same question that all of the various regional authorities have asked themselves throughout the course of this international initiative. Many of them, especially the AOU seems to feel that this dooms them to some sort of irrelevance, and they seem to be marking their territory. There are many, many birds that have been renamed and for which in their particular regions the existing regional groups have camped objections. The AOU is probably the most defensive in their intention to apparently obviate this initiative.
"AOU Checklist of North American Birds
The NACC invited the IOC North America subcommittee to submit proposals for change. The first proposal submitted April 2007 invited the NACC to align their guidelines for spelling and use of compound names (see 6th edition of the AOU Checklist of North American birds) with those recommended by the IOC. They rejected this proposal (see Auk 124:1472), but will review proposals on a species by species basis. This decision separates the AOU from other leading ornithological institutions and publishers (BOU,WOS,DOS,HBW,DK,ToL project etc.)."
I would suggest that your objection might be better served if broached again once the HM 4° Ed. is published, which hopefully is not too far off. As seems evident from the preceding paragraph the stance of the AOU is reactive, and not proactive. They feel apparently that they should have been the final arbiter that must pass on the final decisions for the entire initiative. They could have been proactive, and presented their case with the IOC on a bird-by-bird basis. Instead, they seem to brook no interference and with little willingness to proactively participate.
In any case, I will drop a line to Frank Gill and simply ask him why this common name has been applied to C. minimus on the IOC list. It should be noted that the IOC list is still a living list and is constantly being revised. There is no reason why reputable representatives of the AOU might not present their objections, and motivate their reasons for believing that specific english common names should be modified.
There is an ever increasing number of groups that in spite of some misgiving recognise the utility of finally having homologation of the english common names. I would imagine that the AOU might feel rather squeamish if it turned out that virtually everybody adopts the IOC indications, with the singular exception of the AOU. Steve Pryor (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This is definitely a related issue. Florida Scrub-Jay, for instance, is called Florida Scrub Jay by IOC, yet it's only found in Florida, where the former spelling is used almost exclusively. Is it a scrub-jay that lives in Florida, or a jay that lives in a habitat called Florida scrub? Without a hyphen, it's not apparent. Had I been on the AOU committee, I'd have joined in the rejection of that proposal, as well. I do not understand the justification for eliminating the hyphens in bird names. Hyphens, and the cases of the letters that follow them, convey information and remove ambiguity without taking up any additional room. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of these sorts of questions. I have always viewed the hyphenation itself as being confusing. In other words, it makes one wonder if there is some particular morphotype recognisable by this as inhabiting only scrub habitat! Nobody likes change!Steve Pryor (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
... but jays they can not be put in an alphabetical list under "Jay", if some are scrub-jays. Some jays would be under "Jay" and some under "Scrub-jay". Snowman (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not really, because a good index will list it also as "Scrub-Jay, Florida". You don't give index writers nearly enough credit. They've been dealing with this (i.e., "Lark, Meadow") for decades. This is truly a non-issue. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
With a redirect! :) We already know that the Wiki doesn't make good indexes. Just see all the examples where things are listed as (for example) "Least Grebe" rather than "Grebe, Least"! And how about the people who are looking for "scrub-jay" (since that's what all the books call it) in the list and don't find it? Let's face it: no matter which option we choose, somebody will struggle because of the way the category system (Wiki's "index") currently works. MeegsC | Talk21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Snowman — I was being a bit flippant. There currently is no real indexing function in Wikipedia. The only way to provide multiple "indices" to an article is through redirections (like we currently do with scientific names, for example). Categories work to some extent, but not well for biological entities. For example, look at the category [[Category:Non-native fauna of the British Isles]]. There are some pheasants under C, some under L, some under R. None under P, where one might expect to find them if this were a real index. And even where things are where we might expect (ducks under D, for instance), they're listed as "Ruddy Duck" and "Wood Duck" rather than "Duck, Ruddy" and "Duck, Wood". If, (for the sake of illustration) Florida Scrub Jay also occurred as a non-native species in the UK (!!), then theoretically we could create a redirect called "Florida Scrub-jay" which would also be assigned to this category. Then at least readers would find it under "S" (for Florida Scrub-jay, if it was sorted as "Scrub-jay, Florida") as well as J (for Florida Scrub Jay, if it was sorted as "Jay, Florida Scrub"). And, in reality, this is probably what we'll need to do - at least until the powers-that-be change MediaWiki to better handle true indexing. MeegsC | Talk22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation of indices in Wikipedia, MeegsC. My apologies for being pedantic, but Florida Scrub-Jay is the AOU name for the bird. I'm aware of no authority that uses Florida Scrub-jay. Understanding and appreciating the difference is key to understanding why hyphen usage is important in bird names. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
One of the reasons that a need has been felt for the homologation of english common names is because throughout the years so many regional guide books have been published using common names provided by multiple taxonomical authorites, the authorities that in the time frame in which the books were published were in competition, one with the other. In spite of the valid reasons that many regional groups might have that would tend to not want homologation at all, personally, I will find it much easier if one english common name is adopted universally. The principal reason why I almost categorically refuse to use common names is because there are just too many of them. For this reason, I have almost always used scientific binomina because it cuts across regional differences, including those created by different languages.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Steve, I think most people here, myself included, would agree with you on the larger point of reaching consensus on names to communicate more easily. But there's no reason for IOC to invent a name where there is no disagreement! By creating a new name that no one uses for a species that has no alternate names, they're only breeding more confusion--a self-defeating action. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that the IOC has little business making up entirely new names in the absence of a need to do so, I second the suggestion that you take it up with them. I got them to change some New Zealand names, and they have shifted a bunch of Pacific and New Guinean names for the same reason. Overall I disagree with your proposal as it makes things even more confusing. Also, there is no need to shout in section headers. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk02:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sabine's Sunbird, yes, this is actually the thrust of my comment. In the case of the Grouse, I actually think that Michael has a point. However, I personally am happy with the simplification operated by the IOC vis-a-vis the creeping hyphenization that has entered into the common names. Being the total simpleton that I obviously am, well, I like simple things. It would be auspicable in my view that the IOC does indeed consider renaming to Gunnison Sage Grouse (sans hyphen). Your point is well taken in regards of the changes that many regional groups have had to accept. Generally speaking, a certain favoritism towards the usage in the U.S., and the U.K. has been evident, and given that those less fortunate (I am being prosaic here, and intend no value judgment) have already ceded so much, well, I think it unfortunate that some would wish to impose themselves and cede nothing at all.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
A few observations: 1) Much of this resembles the earlier discussion on WP:BIRD here, specifically the section Amendment 6. My opinion pretty much matches with the comments by Sabine's Sunbird back then (with the caveat that we've moved to IOC instead of HBW now). 2) Florida Scrub-jay (not Scrub-Jay) is also used by HBW; BirdLife International aren't alone. 3) It should be pointed out that the hyphenation rules referred to by Natureguy1980–where hyphenation depends on phylogeny–essentially are "AOU rules" since major authorities elsewhere (Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia) don't follow them, and always have words after hyphen in lower case. If Aphelocoma coerulescens was to turn up on the BOU list and they used a hyphen, it would therefore be Florida Scrub-jay. For people with a greater interest in the AOU hyphenation rules, I would suggest reading the paper that formed much of the basis for them, Parkes 1978. • Rabo³ • 14:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the species is correct. However, there is a rather large parrot-breeding operation on Gran Canaria, including of this species. I would not like the color tone of the head of this bird were I considering it a wild-type. I would hypothesize an escape after somebody has been fooling with selection. V. http://aviariograncanaria.jimdo.com/Steve Pryor (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that the colours on the head (and the leg ring) may suggest captive breeding for colour selection or hybridization. However, Forshaw does not mention a population on Gran Canaria. Is there a distinctive type native on Gran Canaria? Is this parrot-breeding operation for the pet trade or for conservation? Snowman (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I should have asked if there is any reason to doubt the photographer's identification going on the picture of the eggs and location. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was using an old second-hand book and I was slightly puzzled by what I presume is an old synonym for the binomial. First image of this species on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. Red wash on upper breast. There are also a lot of photos of the male in the same album, as well as the rather distinctive large-billed tasman race of Colluricincla harmonica, and the endemic tasman Anthochaera.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded to Commons the male rosellas some time ago. Can you link the two photographs that you are interested in? Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean you're more selective than with other websites, and than you could be? Flinfo, the description generator, can now do Picasa; you need to download the file, but all you need to type is some of the description field and categories. —innotata22:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
A suitable file name also needs writing in. I did not know that Flinfo does Picasa Web Albums as well. I usually use flickr2commons, but is not not working at the present time. There is no equivalent for Picasa. Also, some of Sammy Sams photographs have watermarks, and it is extra work to remove the watermark. Generally, I pick the low-hanging fruit first. Snowman (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys. I seem to be making extra work for those that actually edit these things. I have virtually no handle on what has already been done on the wiki unless somebody actually asks me to review a species page for some reason. When I come on, I do so just to look at the bird identifications. I recognise that some of these photos have already been uploaded but I did not think to check.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Extras (as I call them) or other good photographs from the same set are usually welcome and has picked up some photographs of rare birds that I missed. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Snow, there is still a bit of softness at the commissure, so it looks a late juvenile. Instinctively, but if someone else wants to entertain other possibilities, a juvenile Cinnyricinclus. The photographer offers no help because his birds were probably shot in some bird park in Europe somewhere and there is just a hodgepodge.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Have now had more time to look at this. I confirm the species. However, I can now sex it. It is a female. Presuming that it were a late juvenile male this bird does not demonstrate any indication of the incipient substitution of the covert feathers, and the outer primaries with the adult purple plumage, and this should be seen at this stage were it a male.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I had not considered that some may consider the genus as contemplating three different specific entities, as least for a while now. Yes, you are right, formerly associated (and maybe some still do) in this genus were Sharpe's Starling, and Abbott's Starling now considered more correctly associated to those Starlings, such as Kenrick's, Stuhlmann's, and Narrow-tailed Starling in genus Poeoptera. Therefore, in this case, having said Cinnyrinclus meant not only the genus, but also the species since the only left populating this genus was/is Cinnyricinclusleucogaster (Violet-backed Starling).Steve Pryor (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Will need time to look at this one. The genus does appear to be Lagonosticta. Will do a range search for the possibles, and then I have to explain the bill color to myself.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I will go along with the ID as captioned by the photographer. We are more or less at the range interface here (in SC Tanzania) of rhodopareia, and rubricata, however, there is just no way that I can make this bird out to be pinkish! A male bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
here. Habitat is probably best described as wet sclerophyll. I don't have an audio recording - camera's built-in microphone isn't useful for something 25 meters away. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
JJ, I have had an initial look at it. The bill looks just too strong for P. olivacea where (for a Pachy) the bill is rather stubby. I also have difficulty in associating the reddish component around the eye to any ranging Pachy. There is also the problem of the fine ventral streaking. I will have to look further into this photo, however, I am more oriented right now to considering something immature, but not Pachy (V. 4th pic down), e.g., http://www.gardensforwildlife.dpiw.tas.gov.au/gfw.nsf/GardenStories/E0C965ABB65BC4B5CA2577430014ED55
JJ, I am pretty sure already that it is a juvenile Colluricincla harmonica strigata. However, I will try and find time today to send the photo to a knowledgeable aussie friend or two just to confirm.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input regarding taxomomy and using IOC for english names. I'll be much more careful moving forward with changes (I left Comb Duck alone, for example).....2 issues have come up. One is some of the english names can't be moved using the Move function. A red note appears stating an existing article exists. I've sent a note to WP: Move requests as I find them, unless there is a faster way to do it...
Also, I was trying to change Hawaiian Goose to Nene per IOC (IOC uses no punctuation). Also, our article uses punctuation (i.e. Nēnē), but no reference of Nene, without punctuation. Move to Nene, without punctuation?......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Nene is a dab, so you can not move it there unless the goose is the primary topic. Looking at the dab, I doubt that the goose would be the primary topic. I have moved it to Nene (bird). Snowman (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The IOC says it omits diacritics, and doesn't give opinions as to whether they should be included. I haven't looked at this, but I'd expect Nēnē is better than Nene. —innotata23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
@innonata. Disagree, MoS says use the common English form. So Nene I think. @Pvmoutside, several project members are admins, so you could post a move-over-redirect request here if you wished Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Given the rather apparent tendancy of the IOC towards simplification, and given that what the IOC is now doing, Donsker et alia, in their continuing review of all of the subspecific taxa, and knowing from him that all of that work, including nailing down and reviewing all of the ranges for all taxa, will eventually be poured into the HM 4°Ed., well, it would be extremely surprising to me to find that the diacritics are not all elided in the text HM 4° Ed. In other words, the collaboration between the HM Editors and the IOC group is such that were the diacritics destined to show up in the upcoming HM, it would be logical to expect them to already be on the IOC list.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
IOC says to use diacritics as one feels appropriate: "the committee is neutral as to the wishes of authors of regional works, who should feel free to add pronunciation marks that they consider to be appropriate for their intended audience." Note that diacritics are not the same as punctuation. Also note that "Hawaiian Goose" is the "'common' English form". The article should either be called Hawaian Goose or Nēnē. Nene is arguably not even an accurate term for this species. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
NG, here I actually agree with you. Everybody is waiting for a text tax work to be published, and I am sure that were that volume (the HM in this case) to include the diacritics, that the IOC would be fast in revising their common names in accordance. Unfortunately, we are still all in a taxonomic vacuum for the moment.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not according to my copy of Birds of the Indian Subcontinent, which includes Nepal. For instance, for Mallard (removed) it says "breeds in small numbers in Nepal", and for Plum-headed Parakeet (removed) it says "fairly common below 500 m, frequent up to 1525 m". MeegsC | Talk00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This anon isn't squeaky clean any way; I picked up a change of "India" to "Republic of India" (seems familiar?), and "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Occupied Kashmir" Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted all edits to the list - some may be correct but it is too much of a bother particularly since the edits are not aimed at being correct birdwise. The editor has a long standing record of attempting to use fauna articles to highlight political issues, sometimes using category addition and sometimes editing country names. See User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Nationalist_vandalism - if the IP whois gives you Irlam, Manchester as a location, you can definitely revert it. Shyamal (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, guys. So, what about the IP's other edits? Every one I've checked so far is adding Category:Birds of Nepal to various species articles. Are these accurate? I considered a mass revert but thought that I'd check in here first... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The category additions are based on the lists for various countries. The user's modus operandi is to start adding categories for existing countries and then to follow up on a later date with categories for non-existent countries - example Kashmir, Sindh, Baluchistan etc. Shyamal (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
And now there is an Indian IP 223.189.57.217, 27.56.91.26 out to reverse the usage of "South Asia" to "Indian Subcontinent" (a term which was earlier removed by another bunch of rival editors). There is absolutely no policy here and it seems like this will continue to swing back and forth! Shyamal (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Udzungwa Forest Partridge is a great example of why we SHOULD be using hyphens. Is it a forest-partridge that lives in the Udzungwa region, or is it a partridge that lives in the Udzungwa Forest? Palau Bush Warbler is another example. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The IOC, Clements, Birdlife Internatonal, Sibley and Monroe, ebird, and Howard & Moore all refer to the Australian Wood Duck as the Maned Duck. It appeared the Australian Wood Duck was a regional name, so I moved it. In North America, we have the Wood Duck. So if we choose to keep the name as Australian Wood Duck, then NA's Wood Duck becomes American Wood Duck???????? The name listed on the page now is Australian Wood Duck. My guess is we want it reverted back to Maned Duck? I am now locked and can't make the revert.
On a larger issue, I didn't realize were discussing each change to an english name, as many have not been discussed. I could do that, but we should probably set up a separate talk page at WP:Birds with all the changes taking place. Alternatively, a note can be created on each article's talk page. Either hasn't been done prior, but I can start that moving forward.......Thanks for the discussion below regarding IOC english name changes. It was very helpful.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that we are now discussing each change from regional names to the IOC treatments because there are people that simply are not satisfied that homologation of english names might succeed. If the wiki is actually intentioned to being so impatient that they can't wait for less than a year until we finally have a new text tax work that should englobe all of these changes, including the IOC names after they have been peer-reviewed themselves, then I suggest that the wiki be coherent enough to withdraw their support from the IOC initiative, and spearhead an effort to roll back all of the english common names to the status quo pre-IOC initiative. However, such a move, it seems to me, would prove to be extremely myopic and with the apparent aim of saving a few "favorite son" common names on the behalf of the few that rather than interact with discussion to arrive at a compromise position would rather throw the baby out with the bath water as long as they get their way.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm easing my way back into the project by adding genus authors to all our genus articles that don't have them (all the ones created by Polbot). However I've encountered a problem. The genus Glaucis is listed by Wikispecies as having been described by Heinrich Boie, but four years after he died (on a collecting trip). Is there another site I can double check this on that has the full names of taxonomic authorities for linking purposes? The dude had a brother that might have written up the paper. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk05:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This article incorporates text in the public domain from the 20th edition of Gray's Anatomy (1918)
.jpg){kind=link}
_e_(_Zonotrichia_Capensis_).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[6]](http://i.imgur.com/X9fM8.jpg){kind=link}