Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

Perhaps not

I did think of adding the project banner to my new article, but perhaps not (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Kakapo articles

A new article, The Restoration of the Kakapo, appears to have the preexistant (and featured) Kakapo as its only reference. Is it worth keeping? Maias (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like repetition or a fork for deletion to me. I think that the new user who started the article would need explanation and some assistance. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Video help

I recently attempted video and got a HD bit of Wilson's Storm Petrel foraging behaviour. Unfortunately my landlubber legs were not steady enough and only wish there was some easy way to do a smaller but steadier crop from my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A90wmq6xJ0M . If anyone knows a way, please do let me know. Have attempted to improve the article as well. Shyamal (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a difficult task and probably impossible on a PC. Are there video cameras with an image stabilising facility? Snowman (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Good sharp images, though. I think there's a limit to what you can do unless you get a dead calm, especially with small flying birds. I struggled to get good still shots of albatrosses and giant petrels on the water, feeding on chum behind the boat. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
For the record - an easy way is to upload your video to YouTube and use the stabilize option there. After the job is done, you can download your video as MP4 from the YouTube site. VirtualDub has a plugin to deshake, but this is really hard to get working. Shyamal (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

GA news

There are three project articles at GAN currently Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

falconry

I am reading falconry site. Falcon was symbol of some Mongolian tribes and some ancient historical course shows the pictures. You should be check the pictures of falconry on the themes of Persian ancient miniatures which is related Mongolian empire. That would be interesting for falconry site. (Badamsambuu. G202.131.235.68 (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)).

Copied to Talk:Falconry. Thanks for making a suggestion to improve the article, Badamsambuu. When you have a suggestion that applies to just one article, the article's talk page may be the best place. Also, I encourage you to find such a picture that's available under a free license and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Then add it to Falconry and articles in other languages. If you need help with this, people can help you. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Poultry Proposal

I would like to notify WikiProject Birds that a proposal for a WikiProject Poultry has been made. If anyone would be interested in this project being created, go to the link given and please add a comment showing your support, or giving any reasons that the project should not be created. I would like to make the project a child project of WikiProject Birds, so if no one has any problems with this, and if the project is created, it will be listed as such. Anjwalker (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (131)

Yes. It appears to be of one of the peruvian ranging races, either peruvianus or saturatus. The bill color of the early juveniles, and the adult female is dark - slaty I would say. This bill is in transition to the strawy-yellow of the adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: File description enhanced on Commons and image shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is possible. They have been recorded. However, personally, I would not feel like making a call on this being a stejnegeri, and not simply a breeding male rubicola hibernans. I would need multiple good views, including good views of the uppertail coverts, a better view of the form and extention of the wing slash, and views of the posterior wing margin.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Could it be a Siberian Stonechat, Saxicola maurus? Snowman (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Snow, maurus maurus has also been recorded, however, the discourse does not change. There is just not enough from the singleton photo to make that sort of diagnosis. You need more. You need entire series of photos to look at the salient features enabling a definitive ID. All you can say from this one photo is that it is an adult male in breeding plumage in England in April. If the photographer is sure of his ID, then good for him. In short, to hypothesize anything uncommon, anything not rubicola, you need good photographic evidence on which to base such an analysis, and there just isn't in this case.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
File details on Commons amended to European Stonechat. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes on both counts. The age is why the tail isn't red. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: file description on Commons enhanced. Image shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes (presuming you refer to the persistence of the black on the distal bill), but everything else is adult. The yellow saddle here looks pale but that is because the incident light makes it appear so. It already has the yellow eyes of the adult female. It already has the saddle, and the plumage is already black where the adults are black, rather than brownish. So, you can take your pick, young adult or subadult female bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Update: described as a young adult female on Commons with out implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Snow, given the lack of explicit locations I will just analyse the bird without thinking about the location. The species is confirmed. The sex, and the age are confirmed. Usually recognised for the species are six races, three of which can be immediately eliminated given the obviously red irides (the three eliminated have yellow irides). This leaves the philippine ranging races; everetti; duponti; and freeri. Of these three, and I am an expert on philippine birds, the most likely on gross morphology (and also because I have reason to presume the location) is the Luzon race duponti (which has a yellowish component forming a rather indistinct collar).Steve Pryor (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Update: cropped version shown in infobox on en Wiki species page. First photograph of a male of this species on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, grey crown, limited vermiculations below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Image description on Commons enhanced. Cropped version shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm expanding, should be enough for a DYK. Looking at the image I can't shake the feeling that it should be tilted, because it looks more like it is perched on an upright sapling, tilting its head to keep it level, than looking down. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that it is perching on a branch overhead and the bird is looking down. I would be reluctant to rotate the photograph. Looking through the photoset, it seems to me that the photographer does not tend to tilt his photographs. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The bird did not give me the impression that it was anything if not a natural position. It is hard to judge but the bird looked backloaded on his perch. In any case, I figured it was just better to ask the photographer. I did, and he affirms that the photo was not rotated in any sense.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My way of saying that the bird seemed natural for what could be expected in that position fighting against gravity. It has nothing to do with the photograph, just with my impression that the bird had been perched naturally in that upright position, rather than the photo having been rotated 180°. It even seemed to me that one of the digits (the furthest to the bird's left) was not making full contact with the perch, something that were the bird perched downward would not seem probable.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The bird only weighs about 15 gms and I would guess that it has sharp claws to grip. I can not tell how much grip the bird has on the branch by looking at its claws from the photograph; nevertheless, to me, it looks like the bird's weight is supported by the branch below. I wonder if the photographer can provide more information about this photograph: I would like a more precise location to include in the image description and caption? Was the bird perched overhead when the photographer took the photograph? Snowman (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I will just copy over a link to this discussion. Only the photographer can respond to your questions.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was thinking of contacting him directly and I wondered if you had already established a rapport with him. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Cockatoo

I just updated the taxonomy of the cockatoo article. White is far superior over all the other existing articles and is largely consistent with those. The only open questions are the position of the Cockatiel and the exact phylogeny within the two subgenera within the genus Cacatua. Casliber can now have his fun for the front page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Great work Kim! Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Seconded - I am really happy that someone with more cladistic savvy than me was able to take a look at the 2011 study - great! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Someone might want to copy-edit it.... Parrot will be next, there are several great new studies out confirming earlier studies, which means we can start overhauling the many faulty pages related to this group.. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I meant to fix up the lede last night but RL intervened. Will try that today. Which large-taxon page you feel like looking at next Kim? I'll help with what I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Parrot will be one of the next ones, and all the subfamily and tribe pages. Currently, there is no consensus about subfamilies, so I think it is best to keep it to tribes, which are generally well defined nowadays except for one clade (Loriculus, Agapornis, Bolbopsittacus)that has not yet been named. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Lories and lorikeets

I have started to deal with the taxonomy of the Lories and lorikeets as they are very definitely not a subfamily anymore, but one of the many tribes. IS there an option to fix the taxoboxes with a bot? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What changes need doing? I will have a look at the changes to see if it is possible to use semi-automatic software. If there are several changes, I could do them in one sweep. I think that it would be adequate to add "| tribus = [[Lorini]]" instead of "| tribus = [[Lories and lorikeets|Lorini]]" and the redirect will link to the main page on lories and lorikeets. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup, what needs to be done is remove "| subfamilia = [[Loriinae]]" or "| subfamilia = [[Lories and lorikeets|Loriinae]]" and insert "| tribus = [[Lorini]]". If that can be done semiautomated, that would be great. There are currently no valid subfamily classifications. Thank you! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Done with three new regexes. Are there any errors or omissions? Snowman (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me.... Thank you very much....-- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

BirdForum Opus Images

Does anyone know what the copyright status is on images posted to BirdForum's Opus, such as this image? I may have missed it, but I don't see anything dealing with copyrights other than ownership being necessary to post onto the website. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The page is marked � BirdForum Ltd 2002 - 2011, which may or may not be a copyright claim. Anyway, policy is clear, if there isn't an explicit release under a Wikipedia-acceptable licence, then it's assumed to be copyrighted (with only the usual old, US fed etc exceptions) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Having said that, it may be worth contacting individual photographers to release an image with an OTRS clearance. It's a bit of a faff, even if the poster is willing, but Snowman does it regularly at Flickr, and even I managed to get the Norfolk Mediaeval Graffiti site to release three images for St Nicholas, Blakeney Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen this website before. I guess that the copyright might be taken over by the website or the photographers might be able to retain copyright. In the former case, I am not even sure if the photographers would be able to change the copyright of one of their photographs after it has been uploaded to that website. The terms for donating images to that site are probably shown to users who are logged-in at the time of uploading an image or on a page of print somewhere. I have not logged-in there; nevertheless, I would be interested to know a little more about the copyright of the images there and if it is possible or not to ask photographers to apply a Creative Commons licence suitable for Commons. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
According to this guidelines page on the site, "All photos posted in the gallery, and uploaded to the forums, are the property of the original photographer and must not be reproduced in any format without the express written permission of the photographer. Only upload photos that you have taken yourself." Interestingly, they don't allow the posting of birds on nests. MeegsC | Talk 12:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Meegs, regarding nest shots. It is a policy with which I totally agree, save a few exceptions. The exceptions are study shots taken from a blind by professional people interested in documenting the life cycle of rare and threatened birds in the furtherance of expanding knowledge as to habitat management with a view to saving them. However, most nest shots that I come across, and I always raise cain about it, is done by the casual photographer. Many of these photographers do not follow any sort of rationale against disturbing nesting birds in order to get their shots, and I am speaking even of macro shots. There are many birds that will abandon the nest, the eggs, the fledgelings simply by being minimally disturbed. In order to avoid this, I, and many people that I know will attempt to stigmatize photographers that pursue these sorts of photos for simple personal edification and bragging rights, and with no particular care of the consequences of their behavior.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I can understand where you're coming from on that. I've seen closeup photos of birds' nests with eggs and chicks, along with comments from the photographer to the effect of 'the mother bird was really angry with me and I think that she would actually have attacked me had I tried to touch her young'. Likewise, vids of nesting pet parrots on YouTube where the uploader says something like 'look at how she bites me when I try to move her off her eggs - lol'. Jackasses. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
And nest photographers often "garden" rearranging the vegetation to get a clearer view, which also gives a clearer view for predators Jimfbleak - talk to me?

More WP coverage

A link to the American Birding Association blog, which today featured a post by Birding magazine editor Ted Floyd about Wikipedia. Granted, it focused on the decidedly meager postings about the ABA, but it also encouraged people to get involved. MeegsC | Talk 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Rock thrushes

Amber Mountain Rock Thrush (Monticola erythronotus) and Forest Rock Thrush have different Wiki articles. Is this a Wiki fork or a recent species split? It seems that the Amber Mountain Rock-thrush was renamed to Forest Rock Thrush by IOC in July 2010 (see IOC page). Snowman (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest version of the IOC list has eliminated the Amber Mountain Rock Thrush as a distinct species, based on several DNA studies which show that it is not genetically distinct from the Forest Rock Thrush, despite being morphologically different and having a geographically disjunct population. It has been "lumped" back into the latter species. MeegsC | Talk 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Are they both subspecies of the same species? Can you update the pages? Snowman (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
No, they're suggesting the two be merged into a single monotypic species — the Forest Rock Thrush. Seems a bit surprising, really, given the physical differences, but who knows?! For details, see the original journal article. MeegsC | Talk 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
What currently is the most widely accepted viewpoint? Snowman (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is yet a most widely accepted viewpoint once one accepts the evidence that there truly seem to be only two malagasy species, imerinus, and sharpei. Many birds are separated subspecifically (having had no genetics done) on only slight mensural differences, and plumage differences. Monticola is famous for seminating disjunct populations all over the place. Zuccon et al take the position that sharpei is monotypic, but polymorphic. It begs the question, however, of when to consider something a subspecies or simply a morph when they are allopatric? In certain cases the question is so subtle that it truly becomes a matter of preferential interpretation of the data. Personally, but this is just my preference, I view sharpei as being polytypic rather than polymorphic. Cogent, but not resolutive to your question might be a passage extrapolated from the Outlaw et al 2007 paper: "We

suggest that an examination of Malagasy species relationships using more rapidly evolving markers in population-level analyses may give more insight into their true relationships."Steve Pryor (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the articles are confusing. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC News

White-necked Rockfowl is at FAC. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please help - we need your expertise to fix the large number of disambiguation links to Fork-tailed Swift (53 links) and Barbet (42 links). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Barbet links are going to be a problem, because most of those links relate to more than one type of barbet! (For example, woodpeckers are related to ALL the barbets, not just one group of them.) I guess we're going to have to develop a page similar to grosbeak, to explain that the group is polytypic. MeegsC | Talk 22:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be great. Also, Redshank (39 links) has a mix of birds and other things, but many of the links seem to be for the birds. bd2412 T 20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Redshank done - almost entirely Common Redshank. Maias (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for you excellent work! bd2412 T 19:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox range map

User:Totodu74 has moved the Red Warbler range map out of the article's taxobox, saying the taxobox was an inappropriate location for said map. Has this convention recently changed? I thought that's where they were supposed to be. Should I be putting them — as he did — under the "Habitat and range" section? MeegsC | Talk 11:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about a convention, and I suppose that it could go in either place. However, my personal preference is for the taxobox so that the basic visual summary info, when available, is in the one predictable place for quick reference - in the same way that an image of the bird goes there first. Maias (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, if the range map is in the taxobox, this leaves space in the Distribution and habitat section for a picture of the species' traditional habitat. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a french contributor (damned Rufous-crowned Sparrow! edit conflict while I have trouble with English ), and this layout seems to be more well-balanced, rather than putting three images on the top, on the same height. More of that, it's a method we decided to begin to implement on the french WP, saying that a box is not an article or a summary of, and that it's an invitation to not putting infos into text but in... fields. Coming back to a taxobox, in a way. Of course, each WP has its own manner, I shifted the map back in the box. Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's normal on en:wiki, although I put double maps for genus articles and some others out of the box, thanks Totodu74 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa

User:Stemonitis is adding citation tags to every one of our articles of monotypic genera. Fixing this should apparently be added to our already monumental task list. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not really true. I am adding tags to every genus which was assumed by User:Polbot to be monotypic, based on the presence or absence of other species in the same genus in the IUCN database, and which have not been subsequently backed up with a reliable source. (I am not tagging articles with sufficient sources, although there have been remarkably few of those.) In many cases, there were other species in the genus, but which were not of conservation concern, so Polbot's assumption of monotypy was faulty. Thus, there is a genuine concern that the statements of monotypy added by Polbot are false, and to that end I am marking them as being in need of citation. You will notice that the "Confirmed monotypic" section is quite small, while the "Confirmed polytypic" section is quite large; this suggests to me that the majority of genera assumed to be monotypic by Polbot are not, in fact, monotypic. For those who want to help, there is a list at User:Quadell/scrap2, divided into sections; the section "Citation needed" contains all those taxa where it is not clear after an initial examination whether or not the genera are indeed monotypic, and many of the taxa involved are birds. Please do go through those and clarify the status of the genera with a citation, and either move and rename articles as required, or request that those actions be carried out. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, except I just checked out one of the species on your "citation needed" list (the White-cheeked Cotinga, Zaratornis stresemanni), and it is indeed the only member of its genus. What made you think that was incorrect? The IUCN red list contains every known species, not just those of conservation concern. MeegsC | Talk 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem arises in other taxa, such as arthropods, where only a few species in a genus might be included in the IUCN. This in't a problem for the birds. There may well be misidentified taxa described as monotypic that aren't among our bird articles, but tagging every single monotypic species isn't going to make finding and fixing them any easier. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
MeegsC, if you have a source that says the genus is indeed monotypic, please add it. That's the very essence of this exercise. The point is that the IUCN page linked to (actually a broken link in the case of Zaratornis) does not contain the information that the genus is monotypic, so it's {{verification failed}} at least, if not {{citation needed}}. Claims of monotypy – or indeed any claims about number of constituent species – need a reliable source. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This tagging does seem excessive, but it's probably not the sort of thing that should be said no to; I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't undo the tagging now. I highly doubt that there is a single case where BLI/the Red List listed only one species of a bird genus with more than one, and if so that this hasn't been noticed. Yes, this needs verification, but it is very, very low priority for tagging where citations are needed or adding them, and will swamp the project listing of articles tagged for citations. —innotata 00:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Such case are, fortunately, rare among the birds, but they have occurred. Polbot assumed Hemipus to be monotypic, for instance. (Since most remaining cases are uncited, I can't tell how many of those claims of monotypy are accurate.) In the case of Hemipus, the problem had already been dealt with, and so no tags were added, but it demonstrates that such errors are possible, and that Polbot's word is not sufficient for assuming monotypy. Finding citations for claims of monotypy may not be a priority, but it does need to be done. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Virtually all my wiki edits are for birds. I have yet to notice a bird page with this problem. The problem must be tiny, if it even qualifies for a problem. The single example mentioned so far was resolved almost a year ago. A fast check of your last 100 edits revealed that you marked 14 birds and they are all monotypic. Marking every single article just because seems like an unproductive way to spend the time (for the person adding it and the people that have to deal with it afterwards). You certainly have every right to continue, but in birds I hope you'll consider the likely to be challenged clause. A bit like marking the standard intro line of most species articles with "X is a species[citation needed] of Y[citation needed] in the Z family.[citation needed]." • Rabo³ • 13:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask how you are checking for monotypy? If there's a simple way, I'd be happy to apply it, but I am not aware of one. As to the size of the problem, it may come down to one's philosophy of Wikipedia; I would rather have a hundred questioned truths than a single unquestioned falsehood, but then I'm a scientist, so it's in my training to understand and accept doubt. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Plum-faced Lorikeet had one of these cn tags added and it should have been obvious from the taxonomy section that this article at that time included referenced evidence that this species was the only species in its genus. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Tagging Plum-faced Lorikeet was a mistake on my part, for which I apologise. It did already have a citation for monotypy, which I somehow missed. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Monotypic bird species

Without commenting on the new "citation needed" templates here, how many monotypic bird species are there? Is there a list of all of them somewhere? Snowman (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean monotypic genera? There are 355 marked in Category:Monotypic bird genera, including 4 redirects. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (132)

Going by my field guide, the combination of thin white line and brown streak beneath the eye is apparently diagnostic, with the streaking, rather than scalloping, on the underparts indicating an immature. Maias (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Maias, you are absolutely right! Confirm your analysis also as to its age.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Update: File description on Commons enhanced. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the difference is indistinct. Faint red malar in male. I guess male. Haven't seen one for ages and a second opinion would be good. • Rabo³ • 06:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Will look at this later. As I recall the malar slash is indistinct, or inconstantly there in the male. I have usually placed more credence in the amount of the red wash on the breast, and if the photos permit, on the difference in color of the rump (tends to be pinkish in the female, and a deeper reddish in the male). To a cursory look at this particular bird, I am wondering if we are not looking at an immature (the adults of both sexes tend to have the head decidedly darker grey).Steve Pryor (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am sure that you are right; nevertheless, the educational value of this series of South African birds has been significantly enhanced, because in some cases the the gender and age have now been included in some of the image descriptions on Commons, thanks to contributions by erudite Wikipedians above. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Atlas of Australian Birds

The article on the book The Atlas of Australian Birds does not seem to be at GA level at this time to me. It does not have an infobox and a lot of text is un-sourced. I would start a community GAR for an GA in this state. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is not primarily about a book but an ongoing ornithological database project. Moreover, it encompasses two books with different titles, not two editions of the same book. The books were spinoffs of a larger project. A review may well be warranted, but please get the facts right. Maias (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the article and GA criteria on the article's talk page at Talk:Atlas of Australian Birds. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Trumpeter

Trumpeter Hornbill, Trumpeter Finch and Trumpeter Swan: Can anyone provide a citation that supports their inclusion in Trumpeter (disambiguation) under WP:PTM? As a slang term for the swan it can arguably be included but I am not aware of anything that can justify the finch or hornbill. Irrelevant to this question but yes, I do know the brief current description of the trumpeter family is inaccurate (size arguable, range inaccurate) because of the last edit to the disambiguation. I’ll correct it again later. • Rabo³ • 05:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  • A way around this problem might be to list {{lookfrom|Trumpeter}}, which links to a list of all the articles that begin with Trumpeter. I have added this to the "See also" section of the dab and removed the names that start with Trumpeter, but are not commonly called a "Trumpeter". I am not sure how to list Trumpeter whiting (Sillago maculata), Yellowtail trumpeter (Amniataba caudavittata), and trumpeter clock in the dab, but I have left them under their original headings. A dab is not a scientific classification, so some of these issues can be mooted. It is probably not accurate, but I think I have noticed a tenancy to list the articles that begin with the name of the dab, even for things that are not usually called that. If the dab is reverted again, this could be a time to be philosophical and sit on both hands (at least for a short while). Have I missed something obvious? Snowman (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with this solution which leaves the swan. {{intitle}} is another useful template for partial title matches. I had included the finch and hornbill merely because I didn't see any clear way to distinguish between the elliptical manner of referring one type of bird as trumpeters and excluding the others. older ≠ wiser 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the swan is much more well known and much more conspicuous than the finch or the hornbill. I would guess that the non-bird listings in the dab might need further cleaning to be concordant with WP:PTM. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

American Birding Association mentions Wikipedia

This might possibly be of interest to the project... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, some more birding editor's be fantastic :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad news

We've got it all wrong Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Except eggshells, it appears. —innotata 20:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Awww, bless. I'm disappointed they don't have the picture we have of the cuckoo parasitising a warbler. Because clearly God intended for the hard working Warbler to subsidise the lazy socialist cuckoos by raising their delinquent young. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
They just should blame Eve. That wench.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Project page

I've unilaterally reorganised the featured/good content into what seems to me a more logical layout (all featured stuff – all good stuff – noms – ex). Please comment/revert if unhappy. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IUCN (again?)

All id parameters in Template:IUCN are outdated thanks to changes on the IUCN website. Bot anyone ? Shyamal (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A solution to the IUCN changing its internal IDs is perhaps to stop using it and to run the query on their site using the bird name for instance http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search/?external%20text=Greater Coucal so the current IUCN template could be modified so that the taxon parameter is used rather than the id. Shyamal (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've commented at Template talk:IUCN; should we discuss this there? —innotata 15:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Dimorphism Question

If both genders of a species look the same and are the same size, but have different tones in their calls, can they be considered sexually dimorphic? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue no. I can see why you might, but without knowing much about the tracheal morphology of the species in question I'd find a less ambiguous way talk about them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say that "morphic" suggest that the word is about shape and morphology rather than sounds. Different tones might suggest different shaped vocal apparatus (? syrinx in birds); however, an individual parrot with good vocal abilities can sign in high tones or low tones. In humans the larynx is a superficial structure and so differences in its size and shape are apparent in the surface anatomy. If this is also the case in birds, then the surface anatomy of the vocal apparatus of most birds is probably well covered with plumage and so it would not be particularly noticeable. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Snowman - the point about parrots is valid, but I don't know if this applies to other birds. I have read that the depth of tone in some seabirds reflects the quality of the male, which might have something to do with internal anatomy. But it may also simply be behavioural. So I was hedging my bets. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If this is about wording, I tend to prefer something like the "sexes are similar in size and plumage" or "...are not readily distinguishable in the field" - since the the birds of course can tell the difference (perhaps different in the UV reflectance) and humans can sometimes see differences in behaviour. Shyamal (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It is primarily about wording and linking back to the sexual dimorphism article, though also for my own education. Thanks for everyone's input. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a question of degree. Almost every species shows some sexual dimorphism, such as slight differences in size or minor plumage differences (eg the wing bars on a Stone Curlew). We normally take it to mean an obvious (to humans) difference in size or plumage. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Move Requests

Could an admin make these following moves? These are the redlinks in Snowman's list of monotypic bird genera and represent IOC names supplanting the ones we use. Macgregor's Giant Honeyeater to Macgregor's Honeyeater, San Cristobal Honeyeater to Makira Honeyeater, Silken Satinbird to Yellow-breasted Satinbird, Crossley's Babbler to Crossley's Vanga, and Tit-Hylia to Tit Hylia. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You can make all the moves, since the target pages do not exist; I've moved Tit Hylia. —innotata 03:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
D'oh. Forgot about that. Thanks. Pages have been moved. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Super, red-links are now blue-links on sub-page Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/List of monotypic genera according to the IOC by moving bird articles (except MacGregor's Honeyeater). As far as I can see, the list itself is static until the next IOC spreadsheet (not a draft) is out. I think subdivisions into families would be distracting. Is this list useful? Snowman (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The "g" wasn't capitalized. Fixed now. Thank you. I personally find the list useful. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good news

JJ_Harrison (talk · contribs) has been to southwest Tassie and...has taken a few interesting photos... :))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Repetitive work

Does anyone have any suggestions for repetitive tasks that need doing on about 100 to 1000 bird pages? The lower limit is to make the work and collaboration worth while and the upper limit is for the initial experimental phase. I might be able to help using semi-automatic editing software; however, some or many suggestions might not be suitable. Running semi-automatic software has some similarities to running a bot, and some suggestions might be suitable for running a bot, which I might be interested in getting permission for. Some tasks might be simple and only correct some formatting, but a complex task probably would require one more more participants to fully explain what the task is about, do preparation work, tabulate data in a suitable format, and feed-back any errors made. If there are a number of simple tasks, then I could probably run more than one task in a single perl script perhaps with one or more complex tasks. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Genus authors

  • Genus author is missing from all the genus articles and monotypic genera from E-Z created by Polbot. I've been manually adding it by going to Wikispecies (a two page process there as the author is a single name on the genus page, you have to follow the link to get the full name), but it takes time. But it seems a fairly uncomplicated task, if genus or monotypic genus add genus authority field, check article in Wikspecies, follow link to full name, add full name, add date, done! Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I could work from a downloaded list to my PC, or something downloaded that I could convert into a flat list. Perl can scrape websites for information, but I do not know how to do that yet. However, I can scrape files on my PC. You have probably found the quicket way to do the work manually, but it may be easier for a script to examine a html page downloaded form zoonomen.net; such as the page there on parrots. This html page looks like it has a regular structure that a perl script could step through. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the IOC subspecies list corrected to October 21 this year, has the naming Authors of all the taxa used by them annotated. V. http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-subspp.html Steve Pryor (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The author annotations are also available from this site though it is rather a pain in the butt to dig them out. http://worldbirdinfo.net/default.aspx Steve Pryor (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The new IOC spreadsheet is a gem for species authorities. I do not see any genus authorities. I presume that an authority does not need a reference as it is reference in itself. Snowman (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
If anybody has doubts, and needs a quick look-up for this or that genera, I can just get them from my text copy of the Howard & Moore.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Zoonomen is another great source for genus authority info too, I agree. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I presume that the genus authority is entered in the taxobox. If so, this part of the task would be easy as the taxobox has a regular structure that a regex in a perl script could easily recognise. I used regexes to put in "Lorinii" in all the Lorinii infoboxes recently. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
For formatting of the in-line reference, there is a reference too zoonomen on the Eos (genus) article. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Clarification needed on exactly how the genus author is written in various circumstances. Are the species authors satisfactory that are currently entered on the Wiki? Does the genus authority or species authority need an in-line reference? Snowman (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary: put genus authors in the infobox from genus authors listed on zoonomen. Use one of the 30 (approx) order pages on zoonomen in the in-line reference. Get syntax of genus author correct. Seems possible. Awaiting for comments including hints of any show stoppers. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer one of your questions I have not seen many inline cites for authorities in taxoboxes, in essence they act as their own citations, albeit one that takes slightly more work to track down. I would imagine that if there was any contention or controversy about an authority it would be addressed in the text. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So the author's name goes first, then the date, and there is a comma between the name and the date? Interestingly there are very few genus authors that have brackets around them. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a list of authors of bird taxa with the Wikilinks to the authors already written in? This would be useful. I have got a list (with a few visually obvious errors, probably due to zoonomen having some inconsistency in style and some apparent typos) of all the Passerine genera (over 1,200) with the authorities from zoonomen, but of course the Wikilinks are not written. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
A quote from zoonomen "Calyptomena (f.) (Horsfield) 1822 Zool.Res.Java no.4 pl.[52],text Citation". The Wiki article as a different genus author. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure. A mistake perhaps? It happens. ITIS has it with Raffles too. I can check the HBW at some point. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I did a few test edits yesterday. I am almost ready to roll out the genus authors for the Passerine genera in a initial run before the other orders, which I might concatenate in batches. The main show stopper is that the author names from zoonomen do not have Wikilinks. How did Polbot write the wikilinks in? Did Polbot have a list of wikilinked authors? I suppose I could upload a list of Passerine genera with the authorities according to zoonomen. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. There should be wikilinks for the authors. The First name that comes up on the Zoonomen list is (Tinamus (m.) Hermann 1783 TabulaAffin.Anim. p.164,235 Type Nomenclature) Clicking on Hermann gives you Hermann (Herrmann), Johann, which corresponds with our article Johann Hermann. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Monotypic species and genera

  • Also the ruddy monotypic genera mentioned above. Would it be possible to run a script that checked for more than one species on the HBW or IOC list, and if it failed it find more than one species added a cite to prove it is monophyletic? Better than having all those verification needed tags. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, I would need to work from a downloaded list to my PC. I can see that it is possible to get the IOC list in a txt file on my PC and examine the list with a perl script to get a result for monotypic species. I have not seen a HBW list. Can you provide a like to the HBW list. The problem is that the IOC list is not a taxonomy list, hence it would not be perfect for this task and some post-editing checking would be needed. I do not know much ornithology, but someone else might be able to check the resulting edits quickly knowing where the taxonomy controversies are. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The HBW list is here, but it isn't ideal for downloading. I realise that the IOC list isn't perfect, but it should be good enough for the purpose. Most of the fairly obvious monotypic genera are fairly uncontroversially so, those that are more dubious would require further work anyway. Providing claims of monophyly with a cite is a good start, perhaps the two lists could be used, one to do the citing, one to check to see if there are any problems with the initial run. I think it should be simple enough for someone to double check a script generated by the work, I'd be happy to help in that regard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I am using script as a word for a computer program. I write scripts in perl? Do you know perl? I have written some quite complicated scripts, but I generally get stuck and have to ask a professional programmer that I know, who has a forte in text manipulation and number crunching. I use a simple perl script almost every day here to amend a simple formatting issue with a lot of bird pages. I would be good if an expert programmer popped up here, but I do not see this happening soon. It may be better for lists to be uploaded to subpages and cleaned by erudite Wikipedians prior to script operation. There is a perl module to step through Excel spreadsheets, but I have never used it. I will have to wait a day or two or more for some inspiration. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The HBW website is well ordered and it looks possible to data scrape the website, but I do not know how to get perl to examine websites yet. I would guess that the HBW website is generated from a spreadsheet. The lists are in families on HBW and in orders on zoonomen, so without using the going-online functions of perl, it looks easier to extract the monotypic genera and author names from zoonomen. I think that zoonomen is highly suitable as a source for writing the species author. The perl module for examining spreadsheets probably could easily find the ioc's version of the solutions. The ioc spreadsheet is downloadable from this page. The data needs to be added with the in-line citation. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow, I have had occasion in the past to work with the redaction of HBW for various volumes, and Jose Luis Copete sent me a spreadsheet with their taxonomy. However, it is doubtless dated by now, and I don't recall if the genera had the naming Authors indicated. I will ask him for a current spreadsheet nonetheless. To note, however, that the HBW taxonomy does not coincide with the IOC taxonomy (and I don't recall how closely the common names coincide either).Steve Pryor (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
A comparison of various lists would be interesting. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I got a list of 903 monotypic genera from the IOC spreadsheet listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/List of monotypic genera according to the IOC for now. Some of these are monotypic families also. When cleaned it could make a new article "List of monotypic bird genera". Snowman (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
What about a new flat list called something like "List of monotypic bird species (IOC)" and put all 903 in the list. I could easily wiki-link them all and put them all in a single bulleted list with regexes. If not for the main space, it would be useful as a sub-page of the WP Birds project. With this heading and some explanatory text the list would not need cleaning. The list does not have family divisions at the present time, as the script I used was quite simple. I guess that it would would be ideal to have a table(s) divided into sub-sections for families and columns with different authorities. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
From discussion on User talk:Rich Farmbrough: "OK pulling the genus author off Wikispecies does not look hard. The mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC, should we be noting monogeneric families? (E.G. Limpkin.) I presume IBC is authoritative enough to cite for this. The IOC spreadsheet is golddust - do you know the licensing of the notes?" by Rich Farmbrough and copied to here by Snowman (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Monogeneric families tend to already have had attention and should be both cited and have their author information already added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the best sort of reference or multiple references for monotypic genea? I guess that the best reference is on IBC like on this heron page. The IBC url is easily constructed from the names of the bird. Snowman (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No, a list, like on IBC or IOC - of the family (or groups of families) Monotypic in the sense of the zigzag heron in your link I assume means it doesn't have any subspecies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, strike out error with species monotypy and not genus monotypy. I do not understand "No, a list, like on IBC or IOC - of the family (or groups of families)". Snowman (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Simple. If one was attempting to demonstrate the monophyletic position of the Pilotbird one would cite the list Lyrbirds to Whipbirds, since reading the page it would be clear there was only one species in te genus Pycnoptilus. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I see. It is easier to provide a link to the IOC spreadsheet for all, but that might not be ideal and it would be more difficult to verify. List of monotypic families listed by IOC is Shoebill, Secretarybird, Kagu, Magellanic Plover, Crab-plover, Egyptian Plover, Plains-wanderer, Oilbird, Bristlehead, Family Uncertain (Wrenthrush), Rail-babbler, Hypocolius, Palmchat, Hylocitrea, Bearded Reedling, Black-capped Donacobius, Wallcreeper, Olive Warbler, Przevalski's Finch. List for cleaning. They could all be put in a category of monotypic bird families. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you may need to run whatever search you did for monotypic families again. Hoatzin and Hamerkop are missing but definately monotypic, while, though unchecked, birds like Cuckoo-roller, Sunbittern, and Ibisbill are traditionally listed as monotypic as well. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Emu, Magpie Goose, Hamerkop, Shoebill, Secretarybird, Kagu, Sunbittern, Limpkin, Magellanic Plover, Crab-plover, Ibisbill, Egyptian Plover, Plains-wanderer, Hoatzin, Oilbird, Cuckoo Roller, Stitchbird, Bornean Bristlehead, Rail-babbler, Grey Hypocolius, Palmchat, Hylocitrea, Bearded Reedling, Black-capped Donacobius, Wallcreeper, Olive Warbler, Przevalski's Finch, and Bananaquit are the monotypic bird families I got by running through their online list.
Swallow-tailed Cotinga, Kinglet Calyptura, Mohoua, Pipipi, Wattled Ploughbill, Melampitta, Blue-capped Ifrita, Wrenthrush, Yellow-breasted Chat, and White-winged Warbler are placed in Incertae sedis instead of a family.
As a note, Ostrich and Osprey have both been split into two species by the IOC. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I should have added what IOC list as monotypic orders, these are the Hoatzin and Cuckoo Roller. I will have another look at the 10 July 2011 version 2.9 spreadsheet linked above to the IOC website. I am not sure what do to with the "family unknown" group. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with them either. The footnotes suggest that in some cases, like Swallow-tailed Cotinga, it may belong to the tyrant flycatchers than the cotingas, but that does not suggest a monotypic family. There are also subsets in the data, with some of these species being placed with each other. Two of the above incertae sedis birds listed are genera. Also, IOC now has 2.10 out, though I'm not sure if that changes anything. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This is my corrected list from the spreadsheet (excluding the "Family Uncertain" Wrenthrush). My first list missed of the ones at the bottom of an order, because of the different spacing on the spreadsheet. There is 28 in my list and 28 in your list. Is it worth making a list of these birds in the main space?

Emu Sunbittern Limpkin Hoatzin Cuckoo Roller Magpie Goose Hamerkop Shoebill Secretarybird Kagu Magellanic Plover Crab-plover Ibisbill Egyptian Plover Plains-wanderer Oilbird Stitchbird Bristlehead Rail-babbler Hypocolius Palmchat Hylocitrea Bearded Reedling Black-capped Donacobius Wallcreeper Olive Warbler Przevalski's Finch Bananaquit

Some families with two species (there are probably others): Prong-billed and Toucan Barbet Lyrebirds Scrubbirds Boatbills Rockfowl Rockjumpers Oos Fairy-bluebirds Oxpeckers Sheathbills Ospreys

The emu genus, Dromaius, is not monotypic. The emu is the only extant species, but there were other species alive as recently as 1850, not that the date of extinction matters. The genus contains three species, and is thus not monotypic. If the IOC lists don't take account of fossil species, then they are not reliable sources for this purpose. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, how far do we go back looking for related species? Emu now removed for the new category Category:Monotypic bird families. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a question for taxonomists, not for us. What matters here is whether there are more than one species (extinct or extant) currently placed in a given genus. Any genus with a fossil record is unlikely to be monotypic; for any genus with no fossil record, the IOC lists will be complete. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it is not the province of taxonomists to provide a complete answer as there are other considerations involved. As so many things it becomes a philosophical question, and it is usually dealt with by accepted convention, all of which are fundamentally anthropocentric. Generally speaking, with some exception, the convention is that we go back to the year 1600, and there is usually implied that the extinctions are the direct consequence of human meddling. However, there is a rather large hole in this convention when we start considering insular environments and usually exceptions are made that cite human colonization, hunting, environmental destruction, etc., regardless of the 1600 date, and that tend to date from the date of human colonization of the various insular environments. There is also the tendancy, v. genus Emu, to propose specific entities, rather than subspecific entities, and this is because it is obviously more prestigious to those involved to contemplate an extinct species, rather than simply an extinct race.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth explaining these sort of complexities on a "List of bird gerera (IOC)" article. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I have wikified the list of bird genera according to IOC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/List of monotypic genera according to the IOC. The regex was the substitution s/(.*)\n/*[[$1]]\n/, and then I just had to manually fix the top and bottom line. It would be visible in the "what links here" list of relevant articles, and it might be a useful to refer to. It probably needs some explanatory text. It has got a few red links. Of course, the flat list is available in the page history. What is next? User Rich Farmbrough got the same number of 903 on his list. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get a similar list of monotypic genera according to HBW. It looks like I will not be able to scrape their website for this list. I have asked User Rich Farmbrough on his thoughts on scraping this website. Their spreadsheet would probably be much easier. Are there any other lists or websites, which might be easier to scrape for a list of monotypic genera? Snowman (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, lest it slip my mind, as soon as I saw your above, I sent off a note to Jose Luis at Lynx. Hopefully, he has a current spreadsheet. If he does, I will let you know and you can send me a note to my mail which I think you have copied somewhere, otherwise I would not know how to get it to you.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not use e mail here. Another user could accept the spreadsheet and extract some lists from it, perhaps user User Rich Farmbrough, who is interested in the IOC spreadsheet. Alternatively, you could copy a the important columns and upload them with all the white space intact to a sub-page, one by one. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about the HBW list, not the IOC. In any case, I have IOC lists out the ying-yang, but they are also available from the site itself.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
User Rich Farmbrough may be interested in the HBW list and spreadsheet. He was interested in the IOC list and spreadsheet. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

These recent taxonomy changes would indicate that these genera probably need individual scrutiny for more accurate referencing. Incidentally, There are over 400 changes in common names between the HBW and IOC montypic genera, so I plan to compare the binomial names instead from these two authorities to see if this gives fewer differences for a working list of controversial monotypic genera. Snowman (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • It think it would be difficult find a more reliable source, on the topic bird species, than the IOC and HBW. As far as I am aware, these two authoritative projects propose to have lists of all the living bird species of the world, with the latter having more of an emphasis on evidence based taxonomy. Their websites are set out as with comprehensive bird species lists, without any known birds being deliberately missed off. Surely, it is not original research to look at these lists (preferably the HBW for this taxonomy related task) and for a genus that has only one species listed, then the unavoidable extrapolation would be that the genus only contains one living species. This is a mechanical process of extrapolation and there is nothing original or inventive about the process. In addition, anyone, can verify the extrapolation by looking at the lists. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The IOC list of extinct taxa has 144 bird genera that have involved an extinction of a species or sub-species. 22 of these are listed on HWB as a genera with one living species (includes Emu genus), and these will need individual consideration. Listed: Snowman (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress

I want to add a rather different note to this discussion. WP is a work in progress, in which various people add pieces to articles. That is the nature of a wiki. I rather object to this wide scale tagging of monotypic genera etc for references, because what we do is generating a lot of work, and most of the work might not even be done properly. If there is a old description of a fossil species somewhere, missed by most recent literature, adding a recent major reliable source citation will only strengthen the illusion of having correct information despite that it is incorrect. Yes, we have achieved verifiability, but pushed it further away from the truth. So, instead of having our panties in a bunch and look frantically for a source to remove the tag, maybe we should leave the tags away and continue what we are doing saving us the time of finding references to satisfy the need of an individual for references for those taxa. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument, Kim. You seem to be saying that because people might mess things up, it's better not to flag potential problems. Obviously, most if not all articles are imperfect, but that doesn't mean that known flaws (those which might not otherwise be apparent to a casual reader) shouldn't be acknowledged. If our sources contain errors, then that's unfortunate, but that doesn't mean we sallow other errors to persist, just because a source could potentially be wrong (and we still have no evidence that that has occurred or is likely to). A reliable source, almost by definition, won't contain many errors, so I cannot see any reason to propose a deliberate lack of references. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the IUCN Red List a reliable source, at least for birds? By partnering with BirdLife International, the IUCN has been able to give a conservation status to every species of bird according to BirdLife's taxonomy. While your taxonomic source may vary, BirdLife's list can be considered a legitimate one used by scientific institutions. The bot which created many of the now-tagged articles, to my understanding, was programmed to look and see if any other species were listed in the genus. If not, it was named monotypic. If so, that text was not incorporated. To me, this seems to be a reliable process. I recall reading that the IUCN does not cover every species of other classes, resulting in some of their monotypic genus pages being incorrect. However, since the IUCN covers every bird per BirdLife's taxonomy, why isn't this considered reliable? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that we are adding references for monotypic genera in haste. The issues are being considered carefully by several people and no references for monotypic genera have been added yet. I am hoping that more people will collaborate here, as there are many different skills needed and one person can not do this on his or her own (at least not at a reasonable pace). Wikipedia is also about collaboration and team work and not just individuals doing their own thing. Nevertheless, if individual editors were not bold in their editing, then much less would get done. What do you think about adding genus authorities? Incidentally, I have never heard of the expression "having our panties in a bunch" before and I do not think it is used in British English, and I have no idea if it is a European phrase or not. It may be a phrase that does not translate well to a different language. I have no idea what it means. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Just an aside - Snowman, you may be more familiar with the synonymous, and very British, "getting our knickers in a knot" usually expressed in negative imperative form "don't get your knickers in a knot" as a request not to over-react. Maias (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Rufous-crowned Sparrow, It's not clearly stated in the Red List that species are monotypic; it's just that it's unlikely any such errors were produced or if so that they have not been noticed. Stemonitis, Nobody's calling for deliberately lacking references, but for not (over?) tagging all of these page when there's no specific source but it's extremely unlikely there are any errors that would be corrected like this. —innotata 22:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, most of the articles have been flagged in error - as they are monotypic.It doesn't help in finding the errors in anyway. By the way Snowman, getting your panties in a twist is an American version of "getting your knickers in a twist". It means something like "don't get bent all out of shape" or the like - essentially don't over-react to the problem at hand. I'm fairly sure it's common enough in the UK. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
But, innotata, I have already found errors, and corrected them, and who knows what else might crop up in the ones that haven't been properly checked yet? This morning, for instance, I removed Category:Monotypic bird genera from several pages for species in polytypic genera. They weren't directly caused by the Polbot problem, but they were fixed solely because of the extra scrutiny it caused. There are many pages requiring citations; we cannot know how many will turn out to be untrue because of subsequent taxonomic changes, for instance. The validity of the statement depends on when it was made, and with no citation, that cannot be assessed. Citations are entirely necessary, even if it is boring work to provide them (and I know, from work on other projects). Anyway, almost all the instances that User:Quadell was able to list have now been dealt with; it would be ludicrous to stop now. Sabine's Sunbird, they were not "flagged in error" – the facts in question do not have direct inline citations, and are thus unverifiable. That is a perfectly appropriate place for such a tag. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Found errors in bird articles? (Not just issues of different taxonomies?) —innotata 22:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
EDit conflict : They are cited, just not inline. There was a time when that would have sufficed on Wikipedia, but even though things have moved on that is does not make them uncited. In articles with three lines it is fairly obvious that the not inline citation would cover all the statements made. Especially for a statement as unremarkable and uncontroversial as the subject at hand. Yes, there are some mistakes, but these are as likely from human error as Polbot, and inline citations aren't magical fairy dust that eliminated the problem of mistakes. You may as well flag the whole damn pedia if you're so damn concerned that a single unnoticed mistake might slip in. Oh, and as a semantic point, "and are thus unverifiable" should be "and are thus unverified". Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/List of monotypic genera according to the IOC now moved to a descriptive name and wikilinks added to all 903 genera that have one species listed on the 10 July 2011 spreadsheet of IOC. A "what links here" link to this page on a bird article would probably make an editor think more carefully about adding a citation-needed template on a statement of monotypy. I know that this list is not perfect, but I might even say that a good reason to doubt monotypy would be required to justify adding a cn tag, when a "what links here" to this list shows up. Snowman (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Stemonitis, no, there is a HUGE discrepancy between the field of ornithology and paleontology, and many reliable sources dealing with extant birds miss the extinct ones. At the same time, most monotypic genera are monotypic regardless. So, your extensive tagging is just generates a huge amount of tags, which only can be solved by experts who have the overview of the paleontological and ornithological literature. It ain't going to happen, because ALL possible solutions to solve this (semi-) automatically are flawed. And as such, the many tags are just going to suggest errors when in most cases there are not. The number of polytypic genera incorrectly labbeled as monotypic genera is small, compared by the huge number of monotypic genera now tagged with a tag that suggests that maybe the info is incorrect. You are doing this project a huge disservice with your personal desire to eliminate those limited cases of polytypic genera labeled as monotypic. If this is such a big deal for you, I suggest you just fix the ones that are incorrect and leave the rest alone. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Many people here seem to be confusing a tag saying that a citation is needed with a claim that the statement is false. I am not claiming that the statements of monotypy are false, merely that they could be and that we currently lack the sources to make the distinction. I have said more than once that if there were a straighforward source for determining monotypy, I would add that instead; none has appeared. The fact that most of the statements are correct is not particularly relevant; see WP:V. As long as there may be statements which are untrue, it makes sense to note the doubt. Kim, I cannot simply mark the ones that are incorrect, because I cannot tell which ones are incorrect, because there is no reference with which to verify the claim. Hence, a citation is needed. I also don't accept that it is somehow swamping the project with work that it is having to rush to deal with. According to this report, there are 962 birds pages needing citations, of which 219 were tagged in October and November (many of which will be from my recent activities, but probably not all). So, even of the citations needed, this is the minority. Compared to the 2787 problems that need fixing among birds articles, it seems even less significant. There are more articles than that tagged as having no references at all (and there are probably some more of those without tags). There are articles that have needed explicit citations since early 2007, so nor am I creating urgent work – the characterisation as "frantic" is not accurate. Since it's likely that a semiautomated solution can be found for most cases, and you already have volunteers to implement that, this shouldn't be a big issue. I notice that some articles I have tagged have since had citations added, and the articles have often been improved much more dramatically than that, too, all of which is excellent and all of which I welcome. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
What definition of monotypy is used here? I would have thought that a bird genus is monotypic if there is only one known variety of bird of its type and all other known birds are different enough to be called a different species, and this includes all known birds that have ever lived. Of course, there may be some bird populations that are very similar or slightly different to a particular bird variety and these may be classed as a sub-species, as they are not different enough to be called a different species. Should the phrase "monotypic genus" be used so frequently on the Wiki? Why are there few sources on this topic? Would an alternative phrase be better, such as "there are no other living species in this genus" and provide an in-line cite to one of the databases. Alternatively, a reference/footnote in the form of a template with links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/List of monotypic genera according to the IOC and other wiki lists (not made yet) with explanatory footnote for genera that occur on all/most of the lists. Well, it looks like some editors have put some time in to fix some the new cn tags, but I expect that their on-going-projects may have been set-back somewhat. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, it depends on the subject being considered. If the subject is genus, then my understanding is that monotypy in this context means just one species whether or not that one species be polytypic (included herein also the concept of clinal polytypy), or not. However, since I have come across this possible cause of equivocation in the past, I have long used another phrase meaning the same thing, i.e. "monospecific genus". The ornithological definition prout Errittzoe, et al has monotypic = having no taxonomic subdivisions; a genus with only one species or a species without subspecies.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, your response is why I think it is a bad idea. Technically, you are right, it is just about a citation. This does not work the same way for many people, who see a tag as a sign that something is wrong. Anyway, I am sure you will keep doing what you are doing. I said what I has to say, and that is it for me. I will cite all parrot articles that you tag with Forshaw, a general good reliable source. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have said more than once that if there were a straighforward source for determining monotypy, I would add that instead; none has appeared. This statement annoys me. No such source that straightforwardly states "this is monotypic" exists for all birds. Monotypic genera are inferred by the absence of more than one species in a genus. If you've created a genus and species article for an entire family, and for genus x you have only found one species in all your sources, you infer from that that it is monotypic. It's basically an observation made by the writer that no sources have found or assigned other species. To my mind it doesn't need a cite, it's obvious from looking around a bit. That is why no one has bothered in all the years since PolBot created the articles to cite it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a misunderstanding. Monotypy is much more than failing to find other species; as the emu example shows, it is possible to overlook less well known species. Monotypy will be mentioned by good taxonomists and monographers, not least because it implicitly designates a type species. What you propose is original research; you will probably be right the vast majority of the time, but it is OR nonetheless. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The existence of other described species does not make the species not monophyletic if the species is not widely accepted. We do a certain amount of synthesis anyway, since we pick and choose which species we choose to accept and which genera and families we choose to place them in, rather than slavishly follow a single external source. So it isn't OR, just a bit of bending of synthesis, which we do anyway. And I'm fairly sure I speak for all of us when I say that hunting down an explicit citation for each and every monotypic species in the way you describe is an astronomical amount of work for a tiny gain. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's extra work, but I'm not sure I'd call it "astronomical". The sources exist; there just isn't a single source that can be used across the whole class. I'm sure it's not a priority, and you can rest assured that unless other examples are uncovered, I have finished tagging. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's extra work, - work which you're not planning on helping with....
  • but I'm not sure I'd call it "astronomica. Really? We're talking no standard sources and a fairly specific cite that I'm not certain exists for all the species. Say, I don't know, an hour to hunt down one for each (some will be much faster, some longer), we're talking about several hundred hours of work here. I guess astronomical is hyperbole, but that is still a lot of work. For very little gain. For an obvious inference.
  • I'm sure it's not a priority It certainly wasn't until hundreds of ugly citation required tags were slapped into hundreds of articles.
  • you can rest assured that unless other examples are uncovered,' - like the fact that the taxonomy used by Polbot doesn't match our own, so many species are claiming to be in families that the family articles don't claim, or the names don't match the names we should be using yet, or the fact that there are still occasional mistakes in distribution in articles created by Polbot (just as there are in articles not created by Polbot), or habitat types (christ, I still find references to montanes), or the fact that we might not even be using the correct IUCN status (since it can change every year and we may or may not follow up on that). In fact that last one - it could be wrong and inline cited!
  • I have finished tagging - Thank Christ for that. But you've moved the goalposts and stated you don't think the solution Snowman is working on is acceptable. Personally I strongly disagree, but perhaps this is a matter for a wider audience since it affects the whole of TOL. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That all seems a lot angrier than it needs to be. We're all trying to improve the content, here. You are right that I haven't been able to clean up many of the bird articles, but it's only because I don't have access to the sources. For other groups where I knew what I was doing, I have done that. I don't think you can really accuse me of not putting in the effort. I must clarify that I didn't say Snowman's solution was unacceptable, just that the source was incomplete. An automated approach to citing monotypy remains a good idea, but the right source has to be found. Cross-referencing with a list of fossil birds (or an equivalent from a reliable source) to remove genera also present in the fossil record might allow most genera to be cited, for instance. Claiming that I'm "moving the goalposts" is distinctly unfair – I'm just trying to make sure that it's done well when it's done. As we learnt with Polbot, getting it even a little bit wrong can create a lot of work later. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Next time you're going to slap hundreds of ugly tags in bird articles why not leave a note here first? We may not be able to fix it straight away but we can think about it and decide if it is worth doing. At this point the only reason I think this is worth doing is because there are hundreds of ugly tags in our articles. I know having incorrect facts is bad, but the fact you are hung up on is so freaking minor, and the chances that it actually matters so insignificant, that it scarcely seems worth the effort, not when we have so many other problems to fix first. We have a task list, we do try and work through them. I think that we can be aware of problems without having to mess up the articles as well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am well on the way to making a list of monotypic genera according to HBW. I probably have over 920 monotypic genera according to HBW. When a genus is monotypic on both the HBW list and the IOC list, I presume that monotypic status for that genus is not controversial. I think that it would be a good idea to replace the cn tags with a template for an combined in-line site and footnote to explain the situation for genera that appear on both lists. There will be some genera that are only on one of the lists and I plan to provide a list of these for special investigation by erudite ornithologist editors, who I hope will consider the remaining cn tags. Awaiting comments. The wording of the template can be discussed later. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have the list of monotypic genera I derived from HWB ready, but I would like to consider it for a bit longer before uploading and also to wait to see what User Rich Farmbrough says. As I said earlier, I am hoping that semi-automated work on the WP Project will be a collaboration to make the most of the various skills of editors. I am currently puzzled about the difference between ancient ancestor birds and ancient birds that are considered in the topic of monotypic genera with modern birds. It would make a difference to the wording of describing a bird as monotypic or as having no other living members in its genus. I also need to know a bit more about the format of genus authorities - please see the heading above and reply there. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the IOC does not deal with extinct species at all, so that list is definitefely incorrect. Is HWB extensive on fossils? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is a problem, if the script checks the page before doing it and finds that it isn't (I guess by the existence of a genus page) it should leave the page alone. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Kim, they do, but it is a work in progress. Dr. Donsker has informed me that the extinct taxa, of whatever level, will eventually be included in the main IOC list. Here the link to the current extinct taxa file, and also their criteria for listing the extinct taxa (scroll down to Version 2.9) http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates.html Steve Pryor (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so they do include extinct species since 1600, leaving out all fossil species that could make genera polytypic. Eclectus is one of those genera. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
...but a comment above seems to imply that generally known taxa that have lived since about 1600 are taken into consideration for the topic of modern bird genus monotypi. Surely, most fossil (not sub-fossil) species would go back in time so far that they would probably represent ancestor birds. As evolution has changed species relentlessly over time then surly monotypi would need to be considered in a certain time frame. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No, this is COMPLETE bogus. Whether a genus is monotypic is determined by whether there is one species or multiplespecies within the genus. If there are two species with the genus name Eclectus, the genus is polytypic. The end. So, unless someone is going to dig through ALL the paleontological ornithology literature, any attempt to fix this is going to result in genera CITED to be monotypic that are not. Really, undoing all the tagging and leaving them uncited is a far better solution. We add tags when there is serious questions. This mass tagging was not based on that, it was based on an individuals desire to be perfectly correct in all cases. The automated solutions are only going to make it worse by falsely suggesting that they are actually monotypic for sure when they very well might not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Kim, I don't think that anybody will contest the correctness of your viewpoint. However, even if compromise positions, such as are generally established conventions for dealing with knotty problems such as this particular one is, you still have to establish such a convention simply because full knowledge of all extinct taxa stretching back in time, and this is the problem essentially, that is to what time, simply lacks. If we had full knowledge of all extinct bird taxa, everywhere throughout the world, and if then we had rock-solid defining parameters dictating when sub-fossils, or fossils, must be assigned to this or that already recognized extant genus, then the whole question would be moot. However, we don't. In spite of agreeing with you that on a purely intellectual and scholastic level your viewpoint is correct, and desirable, it seems to me to be not workable. Conventions are established simply because the problem taken back in time always leads us to ever more lacunar interpretations due to increasingly less knowledge. Personally, I have read many works describing extinct bird taxa, many proposing extinct genera, etc., and I always come away with a sense of ipse dixit. By this I mean that we presently attempt to pigeonhole extant bird taxa with a multitude of tools, genetic, behavior, plumage, sonographic, morphometric, anatomic, and schelectric. In the case of sub-fossil remains this is reduced essentially to schelectric, and if we are lucky perhaps anatomic insofar as there exist from time to time still articulated joints. With fossils, we have even less to work with, essentially the skeleton, and even so we attempt to draw conclusions, as we must, from these scant remains to propose phylogenetic relationship with still extant birds.
As per your tagging question, well, though I do contest the proposition that it is possible to assign species level taxa in all cases in a proper manner to an extant genus, conversely, I can't argue that such an assignation might not be correct. If left to me I would probably punt on the question, put in some sort of disclaimer indicating that such and such a genus has only one extant species. To put it another way, automatic tagging in the case of questions necessitating human brainpower to make a valid judgment, does not seem to me to be the way to go. Roboticized internet tools do not do research, they sift data, and they can not interpret. Only we can do this after considered pondering.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Place Birdlife International status notes into status-ref in the Taxobox

Good idea Snowman. A suggestion from me:

Whenever I've come across a references section where a Birdlife International status reference is given as part of the article text rather than using the inline reference tags, I've added it into the taxobox under the status-ref field. This seems like it could be semi-automated? You'd need to check that the article has a reflist section and if it doesn't add one, to avoid an error.

As an example edit, in case it's not clear what I mean, see [1]

SP-KP (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank for providing a link. In the example that you have provided the external link to the external website does not work. This is a common problem and it seems that Birdlife have recently changed there website file names. See below in the "IUCN (again?)" section and Template talk:IUCN. This is a difficult problem. Snowman (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is true, but the linking problem is no worse after the edit than before, so this type of edit is still valuable, wouldn't you say? SP-KP (talk)

Do you know how to fix an individual IUCN external link? I am not sure where the best place for this sort of in-line cite is. It seems to clutter the mark-up code of the infobox a lot; however, it looks simple on the rendered html page that every one sees. I have asked for some technical assistance from a Wikipedian and he may have something in a few weeks time. Comments on the position of these in-line sites would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know, sorry. Personally, I don't see a problem with the mark up of the taxobox looking cluttered - the clutter has to be somewhere, and better if its isolated in a single line within a taxobox than in a paragraph of text, in my opinion. As you say, it looks fine in the rendered page. I'm not sure why else we would have a status-ref tag if it was not for this? SP-KP (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have manually fixed this one ref: search for the bird on the IUCN website and transcribe the new webpage number to the reference template; bring template up-to-date with new dates; add "version" field to the template. Snowman (talk)

Are these new birds on HBW website?

Are these new birds on HBW website? Snowman (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

with a rising vocal inflection emphasizing "new"! The answer is yes, they have been added to the site since the text species accounts were published in the various volumes. This is to be expected. There is a film clip somewhere in which del Hoyo relates his vision that the HBW series will be supported and amended in the future. At least two volumes subsequent to the basal 16 Volume series are being planned. I am not too clear about the intent and scope of the second volume (Volume 18), however I do know that the first volume (Volume 17)is being prepared by a team led, and assembled by the eminent phylogeneticist Jon Fjeldså, and its major thrust will be on taxonomic changes occuring since the publication of the various volumes throughout the years, and also a very heavy dose of higher avian phylogenetics. We should expect to see major changes in the web-available information on IBC in the future.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Locked pages

More locked pages.

Shouldn't be a disamb for less than three items, deleted and moved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures on some stub-templates

Template talk:Goose-stub has a bird depicted but not a goose making it look odd. There are several more like this: Template talk:Apodiformes-stub, Template talk:Caprimulgiformes-stub, Template talk:Coraciiformes-stub, Template talk:Cuculiformes-stub, Template talk:Duck-stub, Template talk:Galliformes-stub, Template talk:Goose-stub, Template talk:Ornithologist-stub, Template talk:Ornithology-stub, Template talk:Paleo-bird-stub, Template talk:Pelecaniformes-stub, Template talk:Piciformes-stub, Template talk:Podicipediformes-stub, Template talk:Swan-stub, Template talk:Tinamiformes-stub,Template talk:Trogoniformes-stub. Snowman (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? The goose one actually has a goose on the stub template, and the apodiform one has a hummingbird, which at least according to our article is an apodiform. Ucucha (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant the templates on the talk pages. Click on the links I provided (such as this one on a duck page Template talk:Duck-stub) and you will`see a turnstone, a small version of File:Ruddy-turnstone-icon.png, in the template box. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that just the general WP:BIRDS tag template that's on the talk of everything that's currently included in the project? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the image is the same on the Template talk:Bird-stub. I was thinking that it would be more appropriate to have a duck on Template talk:Duck-stub for placement at the top on the talk pages of ducks, if not perhaps "Template talk:Bird-stub" should be used on all bird talk pages. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with stub templates; it is Template:BirdTalk. Ucucha (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Whatever they are called they start with; "Duck-stub is part of WikiProject Birds" (see Template talk:Duck-stub) and appear at the top of the talk page of duck stub articles. Perhaps, these should be replaced with the more familiar Template:BirdTalk or perhaps the the picture should be changed to a duck. Snowman (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Those talk pages *do* contain Template:BirdTalk, the same as any other talkpage that someone has tagged as being of interest to this project. Seriously - click edit and take a look. I suppose that if you really wanted to, you could subst it and then change the picture to a duck, or whatever as appropriate - but that would break the function of the template and negate its purpose for being there in the first place. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Strawpoll about monotypic genera

In light of the tagging of many monotypic genera with the citation needed tag, and the impossibility to correct all of those by actually thouroughly examining the whole relevant body of literature for that genus, I propose that we undo all the tagging in favour of a semi-automated fix that could lead to falsely tagging genera as monotypic when they are not.

How about, instead, we just remove the "citation needed" tags and be done with it. If someone knows otherwise, they can change the article. I swear sometimes that "Obama is the president of the US" would make someone demand a citation. Natureguy1980 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought the process was supposed to be adding cites where the tags were placed if the genus really was monotypic. Not that I don't think just removing the tags is a reasonable solution too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand the purpose. The tags indicate that there is a problem. Removal of the tags without fixing the underlying problem is just burying your head in the sand. There is a statement in the articles which is not necessarily true, and which is not currently verifiable for the reader. All statements that are "challenged or likely to be challenged" must have citations; that is one of Wikipedia's core policies. You cannot ignore that simply in order to remove tags you consider ugly. You don't need to scour "the whole relevant body of literature"; you only need to find one source that says "the monotypic genus Aus", or "the only species in the genus", and cite that. The authors of that source may be wrong – they may have overlooked fossil taxa, or they may not be up to date – but that's a general problem with citation, not something specific to this problem. I have been providing citations for most of the plants on the list, and there's nothing like an IOC list to consult in that case. Instead, I have had to find different sources for different genera. It's a bit of work (maybe up to 10 minutes for a simple case where the genus is truly monotypic), but it's not insurmountable. In some other instances of {{citation needed}} tags, there would be the alternative solution of simply removing the questioned statement, but that cannot be applied in this case, because the bolding in the taxobox, and the redirects all imply monotypy (based on the same assumption). What you are proposing violates policy and does not improve the content. The tags must be retained until a citation can be provided. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding anything. The tag suggest there IS a problem, when in most cases, there is NO problem. As such, the tags are misused. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
"{{Citation needed}} ... is a template used to identify questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source." That is exactly the case here. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, in that case, lets use verifiability, not truth as the guideline and just add the first source that claims the genus is monotypic. After all, we just want to have a citation for the claim. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • We are ignoring nothing. All statements, period, can be challenged. You have not challenged every unsourced statement, just these. What we are stating is that a) these statements are unlikely to be challenged and b) even if they are there is no requirement that every unsourced statement has to have a tag. As we expand articles we will deal with this MINOR, repeat MINOR problem. In the meantime there is no benefit to tagging the articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, "{[Citation needed}}" also says: "While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously." I think this is exactly such a case in which no efort was made to solve most cases, and just was a work-dump to the project. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. I know how much work I put into identifying the problem, ascertaining its extent, and fixing it. I know how many pages I've trawled through to see if citations were present. I know how many pages I've fixed because they contained false information. I know how many hours I spent fixing problems that were caused by someone else. My conscience is clear. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, in that case, maybe what we should do is just continue with what we are doing best and leave the tags to you to resolve as you are so good anyway. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

These statements have been challenged. The act of tagging them is a challenge. I doubt every one of Polbot's assumptions of monotypy, because we know they were based on faulty logic. How is removing the tags mandated by policy? How is the reader to know which statements are the product of uneducated guesswork if the tags are removed? (I don't know why you feel the need to emphasise the word "minor" so much; I have not claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean it's not worth being open about.) Leave aside your emotional reactions, and concentrate on policy. As far as I can see, there is no justification for removing tags that mark genuine problems. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There are NO genuine problems. There is the supposition of a genuine problem, based on the supposition of errors based on no actual examples but unproven guesswork. The act of challenging them nothing moe than an automated response to an automated generation of an observable inference. No effort was made to find out if the supposition was correct before lumping months of effort onto us. For which you expect a barnstar or something. Form the way you were carrying on I'd think we were trying to convince the word that monotypic bird genera were actually sodding turtles or frogs rather than just they were the only species in their genus on account of no other species were in their genus. We simply feel there are many more important things to be getting on with before we get to this issue, and see no reason why these articles need these tags in the meantime. We will deal with this eventually. There is not much danger of any reader being deceived. Will you please stop evoking some harmed hypothetical reader that doesn't exist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I have already said that the amount of work has been overestimated. I have also explained that I couldn't check if the statement was true, and that that is exactly why an inline citation is needed. I also note that your answer does not consider Wikipedia policy. Since you appear to be needlessly angry, I can't see that any further good can come from this conversation. I would also ask everyone here to note that even if a majority of voices here would like to see the tags removed, that cannot override policy, per WP:CONLIMITED. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than tagging every one and making more work for others, perhaps you could spend your time checking to see if something is monotypic or not. It's as simple as clicking through here: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/names.html It's artificial drama like this that scares people away from contributing to wikipedia. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
According to that list, Dromaius would be monotypic, which it isn't. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
By that reasoning, nothing can ever be monotypic. There are always extinct fossil species and unknown intermediate forms. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not true. A genus is considered monotypic if there is only one described species in it. That may not have been clear in the foregoing discussions, but it's an important distinction. Any unknown, hypothetical or undescribed species are not counted. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
You would need to check for extinct species not on that list as well. Fortunately, since 1500 not too many species have gone extinct, and we have a list of extinct birds covering them. Also, Clements taxonomy, another respectable taxonomic reference, includes extinct species and subspecies. Additionally, since we have articles on recently extinct birds, their existence will force a genus page to already exist, as in emu, and presumably (though I honestly don't know how it works, it would be logical) a semi-automated software would allow the editor a chance to look and think before adding if anything strange like this occurs. Snowman's only living species text would also still apply.
And as a fun taxonomic note, the two or three emus were all considered to be subspecies of one species for many years per [2]. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
... And IOC in their new spreadsheet of extinct species list (in draft on their website) the recently extinct emus as subspecies alongside the extant emu. I do not know much about the Dromaius ocypus (A.H. Miller, 1963), which lived about 3 million years ago. I would be interested to see enhancements on the emu genus page. Incidentally, I am not planning adding details of taxonomy to this page with semi-automatic software. Snowman (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
An analogous problem exists for another Ratite, genus Struthio. Race molybodphanes is of doubtful validity though split by some, but the genus seems to have had, according also to some extremely tenuous estimations such as proposing extinct species level entities on broken shell fragments, somewhere in the range of twenty species, now just one. At least Dromaius would have much better biogeographical reasons for the sometimes treated as extinct specific taxa to be simply races since they come from insular environments close to mainland Australia. I have also read accounts of other extinct Dromaius, supposedly species, from mainland Australia.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Undo tagging

  1. First choice. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Use semi-automated approach

I think that the descent way forward for WP Birds project is to respect that unreferenced facts on a few hundred articles have been queried by the addition of cn tags. I think that efforts should be to collaborate in writing a satisfactory in-line template for a footnote which could also contain a citation or citations. The words in the article could be amended to say "this genus contains one living species" and the footnote could say "This genus contains only one species in the HWB list. Monotypi is difficult to establish, because of difficulty in collating extinct species including fossil and sub-fossil species." Wikilinks can be included and erudite editors can make make suggestions to improve the wording prior to semi-automated roll-out. Such an in-line foot-note template could be put on about 800 appropriate pages. The semi-automated software is likely to come across problems on some pages and so some pages will need individual attention by erudite Wikipedians; however, I guess that I would be able to write a Perl script including regexes to apply the new footnote and change the article text on most of the pages. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that wording is appropriate. It is not up to us to determine whether a taxon is monotypic or not. It is up to us to find a reference which states the number of species. Take a look at my latest edit to Thick-billed Cuckoo. It cites a book chapter which begins "The genus is monotypic...". That's the sort of thing that is needed. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
And when the reference does not take into account fossil species? [3] says that the American Black Vulture is monotypic, but several fossil species are known and placed in the article. I'd be willing to wager, and will check later, that a fair number of bird references that use monotypic use it to refer to species post-1500 or so and don't care about obscure fossil birds that may or may not be correctly placed in a genus. How can we be any more certain that the reference takes into account fossil species without trying to prove an absence of found fossil records? And if we can not, why is the book reference any more valuable than Snowman's checklist plan for this particular issue? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
As I have said above, references can be wrong, and this is a general problem across all of Wikipedia. At least if there's a citation, there's a change that you can see whether the authors have taken fossils into account (I agree that many careless statements of "only species" will actually mean "only living species"). The source I used for Pachycoccyx was from 1983; perhaps some new species have been described since. If youn find two sources that disagree, you can discuss the differences, or deduce which source is to be considered the more reliable, as appropriate. With no citation, you don't know whose word you're basing it on. Snowmanradio's plan, as I understood it, was for Wikipedia editors to determine monotypy, based on lists of extant species. That would be original research. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
An analogy: I have a 2006 book by Foresaw on parrots of the world in which an account is given of all known parrots and recently extinct parrots. The book includes many plates and each plate includes a list of closely related taxa with illustration. Although, it does not actually say "this genus consists of one living species", I would have thought that the lay-out of the book is designed to make it apparent how many species there are in each genus; hence, I think that it would not be original research to conclude that a species is the only living species of its genus and cite the plate as the source. I think that extracting data from a list in this way need not contradict; "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made" , see WP.RS. I would probably agree that looking at a general index of a bird book might be not be designed for noticing "monotypic" genera; however, some bird books have more than one index and the alternate indexes used for cross-referenced are often headed "List of common names" or "List of binomial" names making this lists appropriate for data extraction. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that might be acceptable, but probably only if the book makes clear that it is meant to be comprehensive (I would expect the introduction to mention "all species" of parrot, or somesuch). It's not as good as a direct statement of monotypy, but I would agree that it can be sufficient. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is governed by verifiability, not truth. As such, a source verifying the claim, however incorrect, is sufficient. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
... but to knowing to cite a source that contains incorrect information and to use that information out-of-context in an article would not be consistent with the spirit of the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No, we do not KNOW that the source is incorrect. What we know is that the sources we have are the best we have and that the statements are accurate with regard to rge sources we have. Verifiability, not truth again. The reasons for WP:V are exactly that we never can know for sure we have the right answer, but we can know whether we have good sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion on the semi-automated process is continuing above. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Snowman's plan seems to be the best solution. His planned revised text would be accurate, it is checkable due to the reference, and any species that are problematic can be brought here for individual attention. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Do nothing

Second choice. After some more discussion, I change my vote do just leave it as it is. Stemonitis is married to the tags and there is no good automated solution, so I suggest we just leave the tags, close the discussion and move on with what we like to do best, and that is adding content to the articles we have most interest in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you currently have votes in two mutually exclusive sub-headings. May I suggest that you might like to write in some strike-outs through some of your earlier comments to make it clearer what you current opinion is. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making it clearer by adding "Second choice" at the start of your comment under this heading. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(Semi-)automatically remove references to monotypy in Polbot stubs

I don't see that it's important for a stub to say whether there are other species in the genus. If people some idea, they can click on the genus link. When people expand the stubs, they can explain what different authorities think about the extant and extinct composition of the genus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But if the species is the only one in the genus the species article is also the genus article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so it is. I guess the idea is that having the genus unlinked isn't enough, which is probably true. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FA/GA news

Currently, a real burst of activity, with White-necked Rockfowl at FAC, and no fewer than five GAN noms — Long-tailed Ground Roller, Grey-necked Rockfowl, Yellow-faced Honeyeater, Crescent Honeyeater and Titchwell Marsh Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Atlas of Australian Birds. It looks to me like this article no longer meets three GA criteria. A Good Article Review has been started on this article. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And Rock Pigeon is also suggested for GAR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A "See also" section

Someone has added a "See also" section with only "List of repeated names" listed to the "Gang-gang Cockatoo" article. I think that this is largely irrelevant and should not appear on the page, partly because a category would suffice. Any comments on the edit which added this. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to see why how the list is is notable, although its single ref probably saves it from speedy deletion. It's essentially trivia and WP:OR. I don't think we need a link to pointless lists, and I'll remove the section when it is clear that there is a consensus to do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, a waste of time.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Long-legged Warbler => Long-legged Thicketbird

HBW (http://ibc.lynxeds.com/species/long-legged-thicketbird-megalurulus-rufus) states that the classification we have is outdated, and seems to indicate maybe the common name is too. Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC).

MOved to thicketbird as that is what HBW and IOC uses. I think I'll change the genus per your suggestion to, unless anyone else feels otherwise. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rediscovered White-faced Plover

This might make a good DYK if someone has the time to spend on it.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Check out whether this is Charadrius (Charadrius) alexandrinus dealbatus, a subspecies of the Kentish Plover. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Either subspecies or species; this does not seem to have been sorted out yet by molecular testing. However, dealbatus appears to be a valid taxon even though the subspecies of Kentish Plover need further examination. Maias (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've seen it, so it must be a good species! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Subspecies: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026995 -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Should the article be merged to Kentish Plover, as it very much appears to be a subspecies and poorly known? In any case, we have an image now from an author of the paper van der Linde found—PLoS papers and their accompanying images are licensed by default under CC-BY—which I've added to the article. —innotata 15:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
nah, we have more subspecies articles. The Kentish plover article is in need for a good update however. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New vandal

User:69.246.171.60 edits seems to be a low-level vandal in the diet of frogs and toads (Adding unsourced made up names/facts, changing grammes to grams in BE articles etc. Blocked at present, but one to watch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

According to our article and the Oxford dictionaries, grammes is not universally used in British English, and it's no longer used officially or widely in science (so it was not something I had heard of until reading one of your articles recently), so this bit in itself is not a sign of the normal ignorance of British English or vandalism (as with removing -our or -ise endings). —innotata 21:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to say I never saw it when I lived in the UK. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Surfbirds

Surfbirds.com and Surfbirds.co.uk appear to have been affected by malware. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tanimbar Corella/Goffin Cockatoo question

I've been watching YouTube videos of these birds today. Just curious as to if it's a coincidence that these birds sound like human infants/babies when they 'whine'? Thought that you guys might be the ones who'd know. --95.148.109.32 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)--95.148.109.32 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

grackle

A minor edit war is developing over the inclusion/exclusion of a taxobox for grackle. Discussion is currently here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

now i see. well icterid is not the title. grackle is the title, i have a common grackle image (that was the most "universal" image). the kingdom is accurate to the grackle being anamalia, phylum is accurate, class "aves" (meaning bird) is correct to the grackle, order is correct, suborder is correct, family ictariadae is correct. where does it say "ictaridae is the only grackle"? Abc123456person (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

HBW list where we have neither the scientific name nor common name article

  1. Acridotheres burmannicus : Vinous-breasted Myna checkY
  2. Aegithalos glaucogularis : Silver-throated Tit Subspecies of Long-tailed Tit
  3. Aegithalos sharpei : Burmese Tit Subspecies of Black-browed Tit
  4. Arremon basilicus : Bangs's Brush-finch
  5. Arremon perijanus : Perija Brush-finch
  6. Arremon phaeopleurus : Caracas Brush-finch
  7. Arremon phygas : Paria Brush-finch
  8. Artemisiospiza belli : Bell's Sparrow
  9. Certhidea fusca : Grey Warbler-finch
  10. Chersomanes beesleyi : Beesley's Lark
  11. Chordeiles vielliardi : Bahian Nighthawk
  12. Coccopygia bocagei : Angola Swee
  13. Coccopygia quartinia : Yellow-bellied Swee
  14. Coracina welchmani : North Melanesian Cuckoo-shrike
  15. Dicrurus menagei : Tablas Drongo
  16. Dryonastes berthemyi : Chestnut-winged Laughingthrush
  17. Fulvetta danisi : Indochinese Fulvetta
  18. Garrulax castanotis : Rufous-cheeked Laughingthrush
  19. Garrulax ferrarius : Cambodian Laughingthrush
  20. Garrulax ruficeps : Rufous-crowned Laughingthrush
  21. Hemignathus affinis : Maui Nukupuu
  22. Hemignathus hanapepe : Kauai Nukupuu
  23. Hemixos cinereus : Cinereous Bulbul
  24. Herpsilochmus sp. nova : New Herpsilochmus Antwren
  25. Icterus pyrrhopterus : Variable Oriole
  26. Lalage conjuncta : St Matthias Triller
  27. Lepidopygia nana : Madagascar Bibfinch
  28. Loxops ochraceus : Maui Akepa
  29. Macronus striaticeps : Stripe-headed Tit-babbler
  30. Meliphaga cinereifrons : Elegant Honeyeater
  31. Micromacronus sordidus : Mindanao Miniature Babbler
  32. Otus sp. nova : "Santa Marta Screech-owl"
  33. Passerculus guttatus : Belding's Sparrow
  34. Passerculus sanctorum : San Benito Sparrow
  35. Passerella megarhyncha : Thick-billed Fox-sparrow
  36. Passerella schistacea : Slate-colored Fox-sparrow
  37. Passerella unalaschcensis : Sooty Fox-sparrow
  38. Philemon plumigenis : Tanimbar Friarbird
  39. Pica asirensis : Arabian Magpie
  40. Pseudoalcippe atriceps : Ruwenzori Hill-babbler
  41. Pseudominla klossi : Black-crowned Fulvetta
  42. Remiz macronyx : Black-headed Penduline-tit
  43. Rhinocichla mitrata : Spectacled Laughingthrush
  44. Rhinocichla treacheri : Chestnut-hooded Laughingthrush
  45. Rimator danjoui : Indochinese Wren-babbler
  46. Robsonius sorsogonensis : Grey-banded Babbler (needs split and update of Luzon Wren-babbler as well)
  47. Sarcophanops steerii : Mindanao Wattled Broadbill
  48. Sheppardia polioptera : Grey-winged Akalat
  49. Strix sp. nova : "San Isidro Owl"
  50. Stymphalornis sp. nov. : Sao Paulo Antwren
  51. Taeniopygia castanotis : Australian Zebra Finch
  52. Telophorus cruentus : Rosy-patched Shrike
  53. Thapsinillas longirostris : Northern Golden Bulbul
  54. Thryothorus albinucha : White-browed Wren
  55. Trochalopteron melanostigma : Silver-eared Laughingthrush
  56. Troglodytes beani : Cozumel Wren
  57. Troglodytes musculus : Southern House Wren

Rich Farmbrough, 02:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

Some of them should not be linked as they were/are not formally described - have struck their scientific names. Shyamal (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Rich, in re Sarcophanops. Formerly associated samarensis will be split. V. Collar, Species limits in some Philippine birds including the Greater Flameback Chrysocolaptes lucidus, Forktail 27, pp. 29-39. I am a member of the Philippine Records Committee, and if you are interested I have an updated file available with current taxonomy (including the new position on the Chrysocolaptes as well as other Philippine Woodpeckers). The link is on the penultimate entry of this thread here: http://birdphotoph.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6542 Steve Pryor (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources for synoynms

Does anyone have any suggestions as to the best source(s) to use to track down scientific name synonyms? SP-KP (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The volumes of "Check-list of birds of the world" on http://www.archive.org is generally a good place to start. Avibase http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/ is also useful. Shyamal (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There is also World Bird Info, though that is, as a long-term work-in-progress, incomplete. Maias (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs.....

Debate on taxonomy sections listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxonomy_vs_Classification_vs_Systematics_vs..... It follows on from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#General_structure_for_plant_articles_and_lists cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Parrots taxoboxes

Okay, I am gearing towards dealing with the parrot taxoboxes and the related mess. In the [process, does anybody object to me changing the taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes, which will facilitate the undoubtedly additional changes for the parrots, once someone proposes solid subfamily boundaries. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What are automatic taxoboxes? How do automatic taxoboxes facilitate Wiki updates needed to mirror taxonomy enlightenment. Snowman (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have put the genus authority in almost all of the remaining parrot taxoboxes, where the genus authority was previously missing. I may have missed some parrot genus pages that were not at a page headed by the genus name and for monotypic parrot genera without a redirect from the genus name to the relevant species name. Snowman (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The formatting in automatic taxoboxes differs from that normally found in taxoboxes, which I think would be confusing. I think that all taxoboxes should be the usual non-automatic type. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

Just spotted this interesting OR on Silvery Pigeon that links to a primary source in the form of Facebook. Shyamal (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I know personally the photographer (James Eaton). He shot these about a year ago, and without doubt they are the first photos of birds in the wild. They were feared extinct. Unless I am mistaken he also uploaded the photos to OBI.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have removed the WP:OR which was not needed given the notes on the IUCN page. Shyamal (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Green Woodpecker

IOC english name for the above listed bird is European Green Woodpecker (distinguishing from Japanese Green Woodpecker). Page is locked.......Pvmoutside (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

New Turdus Species Described

...actually from museum skins it has been known for a while. Now formally described. Varzea Thrush (Turdus sanchezorum).Steve Pryor (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Justification: O'Neill, J.P., D.F. Lane, and L.N. Naka (2011), A Cryptic New Species of Thrush (Turdidae: Turdus) from Western Amazonia Condor (forthcoming)Steve Pryor (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

PDF here. Also discusses importance of continued museum collecting and the detection of cryptic species. Maias (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Genus authorities

I have been adding genus authorities in taxoboxes following a idea above for a task that might be possible using semi-automated editing software. If anyone has noticed any errors with the genus authorities that I have added, please comment on my talk page. After a trial run through about half of the Passerine genera, I am pausing the edits for a few days during a phase of consolidation. Snowman (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have ran the script over the Passerine genera, and probably over 95% now have the genus author and date written in the taxobox. There are several reasons why the remaining 5% of Passerine genus articles have not been completed or found by the script: the taxonomy is unclear, zoonomen differed from the existing author or date already written in the taxobox, the genus page has been displaced by a dab from its logical article name owing to alternative topics with a similar name, or for monotypic genera the page was titled with the species name and there was no redirect from the genus name to the species. I expect to upload the list of Passerine genera (according to zonomen) soon to find where the dabs and missing redirects are. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I plan to run the scrip over the non-passerine genera after another pause of a few days for consolidation and feed back. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: After running the script, more than about 95% of all the Wiki's bird genera articles should now have a genus authority with a year. The script wrote in missing genus authorities and also corrected dozens of taxoboxes, which had pre-existing genus authorities written in. The script would have found Wiki genus articles, which had a page title the same as the genus name or where a redirect from the genus name leads to the Wiki article about the genus. The script would not have edited a genus, where searching for the genus with the genus name leads to a dab, an non-bird article headed with {{otheruses}}, or headed with "for the article about the bird; see xyz". Nevertheless, I directed the script to many, but not all, of these difficult-to-reach genus articles. I am thinking of alternative approaches or a redirect clean-up tasks to reach the last 5% or less genus articles. I fixed one bug and made one minor improvement to the scrip during its operation. As far as I am aware, the scrip has transcribed genus authorities correctly from zoonomen to the Wiki; however, I found zoonomen quite difficult to data scrape owing to formatting inconsistencies (not affecting the rendered page) in the html code of zoonomen pages. On a few Wiki artilces the scrip has corrected its first edit, usually where I had not noticed a data scraping error and failed to manually clean up the genus lists I generated from zoonomen. I hope the wikilinked author names have been directed to the correct Wiki article about the correct author (and not an author with a similar name), and I welcome input to find any any errors of wikilinking or to find author articles on the Wiki for authors not currently wikilinked. User:Cuckooroller was extremely helpful proving erudite and timely information on inconsistencies and helped me to gain confidence using the script to scan or edit over 2000 genus articles on the Wiki. My appreciation also to User Sabine's Sunbird for suggesting this task as a possibility for semi-automated edits. Of course, this task would not have been possible without zoonomen. Snowman (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff, Snowman. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

feeding

how do you know youve fed your bird[gos] the right amount of food — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracyfield (talk • contribs) 12:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What sort of bird? Gos = Goshawk? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Goose ? more likely this time of year. Anyway, your goose would know. Shyamal (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The Wiki is not really for general enquiries, but perhaps I can point you in the right direction and make some general comments. Many captive birds need special diets to suit their needs. Captive birds also need to be kept in an appropriate environment, which is interesting for them and where they can get enough exercise. Clearly you want to care for your bird, and perhaps it would be best to find out more from a pet shop or professional breeders selling the species of bird you have got. An intent search might find some telephone numbers of bird breeders or pet shops in your locality that sell the species you have got. If you think that your bird is becoming ill, a vet would be able to help. Of course, you should generally only buy captive birds from reputable breeders, who breed birds and can provide birds with leg-rings (circular leg rings without a visible join), usually as young fully grown birds. It is generally best to find out all about a particular species of bird before owning one. If you you can not provide your bird the right environment, you could hand it over to a bird rescue society or bird sanctuary. Please note that some species of birds have legal protection making it illegal to take a wild bird and keep it in captivity and some heavy penalties might apply. Snowman (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Common Blackbird for TFA !?

I suggest you nominate Common Blackbird as Todays Featured Article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Please check first for unwise editing that may have occured after FA promotion. --Ettrig (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason? We already had a bird article on the main page two days ago. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I am really on a mission to identify FA's that have many page views and wikilinks, and yet have not been TFA's. I see every pageview and wikilink as a sign that the subject matter is of interest to someone. Add those together, and you can guage the importance of and interest in the content. You can see more on my user page. But in this case I got personal. The common blackbird is my favourite bird. I will wait a while with this one then. --Ettrig (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ettrig, you (or anyone) are free to nominate - vacancies regularly become available. If it is nominated, we will review the article promptly. I don't think fixing it will be too onerous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
COI — It's nearly three years old now (FA Jan 7 2008), which should get it some points. It's been on several watch lists so shouldn't need too much polishing if it is nominated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Plus 2 points for importance, with an enormous margin (70 >> 20). --Ettrig (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It has got "<!-- Forktail16:147,18:151. -->" after the "References" heading. Has the FA missed something important in Forktail? Snowman (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I note that it has a "See also" section listing "Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep". Has the rest of the article missed something about Blackbirds sleep? See Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep, where Blackbird appears in a referenced list? Snowman (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I would be in favour of it appearing on the main page; however, I think that it needs a careful clean up first. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I've incorporated the sleep bit into the main text now, and dumped the ancient Forktail hidden comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In the 'feeding' section: "Small vertebrates such as frogs, tadpoles and lizards are occasionally hunted" - is this the work of our old friend? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (133)

Yes. Maias (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Updated. —innotata 02:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Keel-billed Toucan. Maias (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Update: file description on Commons enhanced and re-categorised. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean that the identity is certain? —innotata 20:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a Keel-billed Toucan. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll assume you're right since it looks like an easy one to identify with the materials. I've added this to the caption at Nicaragua. —innotata 21:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a starling. Sorry I can't say more than that. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Fisher's Starling. What happens after it gets IDd? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Since you've added the picture to the article, you can improve the description on Commons and request that the file be renamed to something with "Spreo fischeri" in it. If you're feeling nice, you can comment on the Flickr page. (Actually, I'm about to do that, since I agree with your ID.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The breeding adults have bare skin on the face. It this a juvenile or a non-breeding adult? Snowman (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, this is an immature bird. The juvenile brown is being replaced by the adult ashy-grey coloration. Glabrous facial skin? Not that I am aware of, cf. genus Creatophora.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for an exact location within Honduras. There is no doubt that it is a female Lampornis. However, the throat looks too white for sybillae, and the only white I can see in the tail seems to be just the light shining through the one feather tip. The ID confirmation will depend on the exact location. The confusion species is the female L. viridipallens.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I can now confirm the species. The location range-excludes the confusion species (L. viridipallens), i.e., La Tigra NP which is cited in the Ridgely & Gwynne as being the stronghold of sybillae. Given the lack of the expected buffy throat of a fully adult female, I would judge the bird to be a subadult/young adult female.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed, race veraepacis.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I confirm. Not very representative of the depth of the yellow on the belly, however, the only ranging race of maculatus is the rather distinctive insolens, and this is not that.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Easily. That is what it is.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
More specifically, it's a capistratus "Rufous-backed" Wren. The species may well be split into three, so having this information attached to the photo would be helpful. I added text about that to the species page. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO, wing pattern is way off for Black-headed Gull, which has dark underwings. Likely a bird from the Herring Gull complex, but I doubt we can eliminate other similar species from this photo. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
For me, Bubo bubo bengalensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Update: moved to File:Bubo bubo -Kakegawa Kacho-en, Kakegawa, Shizuoka, Japan -flying-8a.jpg on Commons and file details amended. Snowman (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing genus

Done. Maias (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It's in the second sentence of the lead paragraph: Poliocephalus is the name for a genus of grebes.... The article is under Poliocephalus (grebe). MeegsC | Talk 13:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah ha; you have found it. The genus name has collisions in other kingdoms. Perhaps, the article would be better and easier to find at "Poliocephalus (bird)". Snowman (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • With reagrds to Symposiachrus, we currently have two articles that link to it, both typically treated as Monarcha. According to this we would need to do a fairly large split of the genus and place several more species in Symposiachrus. At present I'd suggest moving the Flores and Black-chinned Monarchs back to Monarcha until someone has the time to untangle the splits. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Genus category names with brackets

When the genus name is not the primary topic round brackets are used as a suffix in the heading. There are three birds in Category:Dives (bird). I moved the genus page and the three species to Category:Dives (genus), because Dives is a genus and not a bird. However, someone reverted all this and deleted the new category, which now appears as a red link. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted as a copyright infringement, oddly enough. I'm guessing you cut and pasted the content from Category:Dives (bird), which makes its deletion odd as there was zero content, just a bunch of meta stuff and links. No particular opinion about whether it is better to have Dives at genus or bird unless there is a plant genus called Dives too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
When a bird genus is not the primary topic, the suffix added to the bird genus page heading tends to vary. I have found (bird), (genus), and (duck); see Goldeneye (duck). This makes is more difficult to go through a list of all the bird genera names looking for the Wiki genus pages. Perhaps the goldeneye article should be moved, so that it has a suffix more consistent with the rest of the bird genera. Does anyone know if the WP tree of life has some guidelines about how to deal with genus Wikii articles not at the primary topic and genus name collisions between the kingdoms? Snowman (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I would imagine there has been a preference for (genus), but that there has also been circumstances when other terms might have been used instead for good reasons. In some instances genus names are shared between the kingdoms, so a different qualifier would be needed; alternatively if a common name was used and the group was not a taxon then (bird) would have to be used. No idea if there are any guidelines. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if D. o. oryzivorus and D. o. albinucha are widely accepted as valid bobolink subspecies? If so, it should be included in that article. --Pablo.ea.92 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, it is generally considered to be monotypic. The last time anybody considered albinucha as a race was in a supplement to the first Edition of the American Ornithologists' Union List (the 5th supplement to the 1886 first Edition), and not even by them considered valid any longer (it was not listed by them in the 2nd Edition of 1895). Steve Pryor (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Flesh-eating cockatoo

Saw this video, thought of you folks. I question the true nature of psittacine vegetarianism. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Parrot#Diet mentions some non-herbivorous activities. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This may be a tame captive bird, but, if this was a wild bird, I would wonder if this female had destroyed a nest and was hoping to use the nest herself. I knew someone, interested in parrots, who says that he saw African Grey Parrots eating lizards in Africa. I expect the bones of lizards would be a good source of calcium. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Large parrots (e.g. about African Grey size and upwards) in captivity, if given the opportunity, will readily and happily gnaw on bones in order to suck the marrow. I'm supposing from this that they may also scavenge carcasses in the wild on occasion. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
And the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo whose diet seems to be predominantly insectivorous...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
And the Antipodes Parakeet... Maias (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Or the Kea. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It does seem to be a misconception that parrots are 100% herbivorous. I remember being told by the breeder that my first budgerigar should never, ever be fed animal-derived (e.g. meat, eggs, cheese, etc.) foods as he would physically be unable to digest them. Now I've seen it recommended by experienced parrot keepers on the web that small amounts of chicken and scrambled eggs (with crushed shell mixed in) are actively *good* for them, especially for hens going into laying condition (and certainly better for them than lettuce - which it used to be said was one of the best fresh foods for them, but mainly seems to give them stomach upsets). Also seen it said that hard cheese is good for various species... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Basal shaft

Could anyone explain to me what the basal shaft of a bird’s feather is? --Pablo.ea.92 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Shaft is the same as rachis - so it would refer to the base of the "midrib" of the feather (see linked article for more). Shyamal (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change Infobox chicken breed to Infobox poultry breed

Please see the talk page for Infobox chickenbreed, to view the proposal that Infobox chicken breed be changed to Infobox poultry breed, allowing for the use of the infobox on domestic turkey and duck pages. Your comments on this proposal would be appreciated. Anjwalker Talk 08:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (134)

The juveniles have a blackish bill, and the mask is smaller, less distinct. Here the mask appears fully developed. Two races, the nominate, and jagoensis are the races usually implicated in the various introductions outside of their natural range. Race jagoensis is the paler, less barred ventrally, and without the usually evident pinkish belly patch of most other races (including the nominate). My take is that this is an adult jagoensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I was puzzled because the unreferenced description in the Wiki article says it has "reddish stripe along the centre of the belly". Perhaps, this is for only one of the subspecies? 12:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There are about 17 usually recognized races. Most have varying degrees of pinkness/redness ventrally, some a diffuse more extensive wash over the entire venter, some localized to a belly patch. A few races don't have any redness ventrally, however, most do.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: image description enhanced on Commons and shown in gallery on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed, an adult bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you guessed it. This is a juvenile alba yarrellii.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: image description enhanced on Commons and shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This one's a Red-billed Hornbill. MeegsC | Talk 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Tockus erythrorhynchus -Gambia -nest -8.jpg on Commons. Shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The birds in Africa belong to the nominate subspecies rudis. MeegsC | Talk 22:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
File details of Pied Kingfisher enhanced. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a Brown Babbler. MeegsC | Talk 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Turdoides plebejus -Gambia-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
And this one's a Grey-headed Gull. MeegsC | Talk 21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus -Gambia -flying-8.jpg on Commons. File details amended. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. MeegsC | Talk 22:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Long-tailed Glossy Starling. MeegsC | Talk 21:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Now at File:Lamprotornis caudatus -Gambia-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yup. A Cattle Egret. MeegsC | Talk 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Bubulcus ibis -Gambia -frog in beak-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Four articles (one unreviewed) at GAN

Greater Scaup is at GAN and unreviewed. I have edited it otherwise I'd be tempted to review it myself....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that, Cas. Titchwell Marsh is now through GA, I'd be grateful for any suggestions or copy-editing before it goes to FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I'll have a second look at yours again soonish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It's actually at FAC now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

update

Several articles for folks to look at now. 4 at FAC....all suggestions welcomed I'm sure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy for consideration

We currently have a confusing situation where the Wallcreeper is in its own family on its species page but also with the nuthatches on the page Sittidae. Are there many modern treatments that support this lumping? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a judgment call. It has been considered a subfamily under Sittidae, however, most things point to it being sufficiently different to merit its own family (behavior, morphology, etc.). The arguments for it being a family, in only my opinion, would seem well posited. An aside. It would seem that other bird groups of this general lineage have constituted phylogenetic conundrums. There is the problem of the phylogenetic relations of genus Salpornis, now generally associated to Certhiidae, but by many more closely related to Tichodromidae.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the Ground Tit had been found yet another home. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
A total brain fart. You saw my post before I realized the total inanity of my mentioning the Ground Tit, which has nothing to do with the present discussion.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See this discussion back in January. I thought I had fixed all the Wallcreeper-sits-in-Sittidae problems - are there some left? SP-KP (talk) Update: I removed Tichodroma from the list of genera. Was that the only thing that was wrong, or are there other things that need fixing? (other than a merge of Sitta and Sittidae, which I had flagged up, but the flag subsequently got removed for staleness) SP-KP (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Update again: I've reinstated the merge request. SP-KP (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think they can uncontroversially be merged. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


Help please

I'm in the middle of reviewing Greater Scaup at GAN, but I'm going away for a few days, and unlikely to be able to continue. It's the editor's first attempt, so I'd like to keep things moving. Two requests

  • The taxonomy section was there before Hayden started, and he cannot sourced the two sentences regarding relationship with Lesser and Tufted Duck, and the fossil scaup sp. Can anyone help?
  • Is there a better link for the feather tract than scapular?

If you see anything else that could be improved, feel free. Thanks in advance, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In re: scapular. There is only one manner to not get sucked into all of the cross-meanings if you wish to consider a feather tract. That way is obligatorily the use of the specific scientific name for the structure(s). If considering only the feather tract(s) that would involve also the scapular contour feathers, you have to use the term pteryla alaris (pl. pterylae). I don't know if this particular feature of bird anatomy has been treated on the wiki. If it has not, then someone should provide a section on bird pterylography wherein the various pterylae are defined.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised that using the Latin expression is the only way to achieve clarity. As far as I am aware, in human anatomy there is always an English version for Latin names. The word "scapular" does not appear on the "Feather" article. It would be better if the question avoided jargon like "feather tract". I have no idea what the question is referring to. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you. If anything, it would be better to refer to a diagram of the external morphology of a feathered bird, and in this context, i.e., in the context of a normal birder scapular (or shoulder) means something. There is no strict topographical homology of the scapular blade (of mammals) and what is the analogue in birds which is a rather thin bone projecting back under the mantle and onto the back of the bird. From just the topographical viewpoint the position of the human scapula is more analogous for position to the humerocoracoid articulation in birds. This is in my viewpoint just too much precise detail for the scope of the wiki vis-a-vis the information that might be normally sought by the casual investigators of birds.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that detailed comparative anatomy and detailed bird anatomy are well within the scope of the Wiki, providing the information is verifiable and reliable. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In the proper context, but here we seem to have been dealing with a rather more generalized discussion about Greater Scaup. In this more restricted context, it would serve as a distraction.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. I was referring to the Wiki in general. Snowman (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I have had a look at some of the text of the article and I think that there are too many ambiguities and some unusual gamma for me to unscramble the text without reading the references. I think that this needs a lot of work to get it to GA. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
??? Snowman, what do you mean by "unusual gamma" in your comment? Can you clarify please? MeegsC | Talk 15:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, a typo. Should have said "grammar". Snowman (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I have been looking at the article and giving the nominator a few things to do while the reviewer is away for a few days. I think that the reviewer will need to be proactive and has a lot of work to do here. I think that the new user has done well to get the article to about "B" class.Snowman (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I added teh material about its closest relations - they came from a phylogeny paper on Aythini. Will see what has happened. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

New Psittacula paper

Kundu S; C.G. Jones, R.P. Prys-Jones, J.J. Groombridge (2012). "The evolution of the Indian Ocean parrots (Psittaciformes): Extinction, adaptive radiation and eustacy". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 62: 296–305. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2011.09.025. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 72 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - rather interesting but odd in its usage of P. calthorpe (Layard's Parakeet) rather than P. calthropae. Or has Wikipedia got it wrong ? Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In re: calthorp/calthropae. No, it is not the wiki that has it wrong. The wiki is following the prevailing usage as proposed by Zoonomen. This is one of those questions involving prevailing usage, the opinable original intention of the first namer, subsequent spellings, and other considerations as well. The point of contention is well explained on Zoonomen in the link for this taxon. It is essentially a position taken on a point of order, and the contention of zoonomen is not that calthorp might not be right, but that until such time as somebody actually publishes an exhaustive examination of the entire question and from this argumentation makes a sound proposal, one way or the other, that the position of zoonomen is to call it calthropae.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The known spelling variants including those discussed on Zoonomen do not include calthorpe and coming from an NHM curator one would expect there must be more to this spelling. Shyamal (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Exception appreciated, and you are right! I think I will download the paper, and see if he has an e-mail. I will just ask him. Alternatively, I am about to order this book: http://www.avespress.com/books/
It could have further information. However, I seem to recall the name of this corresponding author from other discussions on the fine points of taxonomy, and maybe he would be best to contact: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/staff-directory/zoology/r-prys-jones/index.htmlSteve Pryor (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_58&oldid=1137392066"