Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65→Archive 70

OMG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Give_it_a_rest Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Chimney Swift

Somebody who knows what they're doing (unlike myself) should review the changes I made here. By the way, that article could use some attention. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

P.s.: some resources I used include: ~E 20:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See also: http://web4.audubon.org/bird/BOA/F5_G1a.html ~E 04:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for additions, could you check that I've dropped the capitalisation of your second ref correctly. So many species, so little time. Perhaps surprisingly, US species receive relatively little attention. You can see how few of our bird FAs are primarily N Am species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
(tangential remark) While we are on the topic of geographically common bird articles being in poor shape. Species reporting rates fall off exponentially and so something like a Pareto principle exists - ie. about 80% of the time one is looking for on the Internet after stumbling on them in the real world would be for 20% of the species in the total list of birds found in that geographic region. Using a geographic list ordered by reporting rates is perhaps the way to prioritizing species article for improvement. Shyamal (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to various editors for contributing to the article. Ornithological taxonomy nomenclature is definitely outside my area of expertise. The issue that I am attempting to resolve concerns the following:
  • (Genus) Choetura vs. Chaetura — both of which seem to be attributed to Stephens. The "oe" spelling seems to have either originated or derived from Audubon's The Birds of America, (Chimney Swallow, or American Swift, Plate No. 44).
  • (Species) pelasgia vs. pelagica — Note: Chaetura pelagica is listed as the "Binomial name" in the article (taxobox table) and attributed to (Linnaeus, 1758), yet the Stephens attribution is later (1825 or 1850?). I believe the attribution in the table might be in error (?).
  • Should my changes regarding nomenclature in the lead be moved to the "synonyms" section of the table?
Hopefully you're not as confused as I am, otherwise I need to do a better job of explaining. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
"Synonyms" in bird books often include what are now more correctly termed as "chresonyms" and that includes spelling mistakes (lapsus pennae / lapsus calami and often indicated next to the name as lapsus) Shyamal (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks! This issue seems to be resolved. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 08:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

New image criterion ?

I came across this interesting edit [1] ? Although I do not see an ethics problem in this particular image. Shyamal (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain. I, personally am of the opinion that behaviour and tolerance levels of different birds to human presence vary, but I am going with protocol here. It's well known in most of the Bird forums all over the world that any pictures related to nesting activity, including those of site-searching, nest-building, birds at nest, eggs, and young hatchlings are not to be entertained at all. Irrespective of the fact if the bird was disturbed or not. It has been debated time and again, and this is the general set of guidelines because of the simple fact that desertion of nests is a common occurrence in most bird species when disturbed.[[2]] And, it is almost impossible to judge by the photograph whether the parents were disturbed or not. For example, here are the guidelines of the Royal Photographic Society; can the photographer certify that all of them were met? [[3]] AvadheshMalik —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. I read the document but it specifically states the prohibition is for "Schedule 1" birds. Nowhere did I see that list. I have taken a few pictures of birds on nests but only when I accidently come across them and have already "disturbed" the birds. I take a few quick pictures then vacate as quickly as possible. If the bird shows any reaction (other than looking) I would leave immediately without pictures. The picture in question is diffcult to judge because the parent may already be so disturbed s/he has left the nest and is in a defensive mode. Perhaps therefore it should be banned. Personnaly, I don't think it should have been removed. We would need to start a "nest photo hunt" to eliminate all such pictures. I don't think the effort is needed. In the Galapagos Islands we saw many birds on nests with chicks and the birds seemed to not care one bit. They never showed any worry or alarm. Many pictures were taken. The guides didn't seem concerned as long as you did not leave the trail. If you did they stepped in right away to get people back. In some cases, the nests were so close to the trails you could not use a long lens. So different species behave to such intrusions in different ways. We should not use a blanket ban. Dger (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but I see no use in enforcing such rules here. It's close to being censorship. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
On television I have seen scientists or official bird wardens climb trees and put chicks in a bag, then take the bag down to the ground where the chicks are measured, examined, weighed and put back in the bag and then sent back up the tree to be put back in the nest. I think that scientific observations of bird nests or chicks should not be censored here. Of course, I would not want to encourage indiscriminate or inept observations of birds' nests. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Removing such pictures arbitrarily or for personal reasons should be resisted, unless there is project policy or consensus to do so. Maias (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is not a bird forum, it is an encyclopaedia. There is no censorship beyond legal requirements such as copyright and child protection, and it is not for any editor to remove images because they don't like them or because they contravene any organisation's guidelines. They may be other valid reasons, such as too many images on a page or inappropriate for a particular article, but any removal should be done for the benefit of the article, not from personal beliefs or external non-judicial guidelines Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, different creatures behave differently to human intervention. It's rather a case of self-regulation. And yes, it's an encyclopedia ...so, perhaps 'general rules' don't apply here. I am not gonna lose sleep over it in anycase. AvadheshMalik, —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds). You might want to participate in the redirect discussion. JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sunbirds

The article on sunbirds starts with "The sunbirds and spiderhunters make up a family, Nectariniidae, ...". The page is also about spiderhunters. Is "Sunbirds" the wrong title for the page? I recall some other pages have been discussed here, because of this sort of problem. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Should be moved to Nectariniidae. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty common to refer to the whole family as "sunbirds", so "sunbird" is not necessarily a bad title. You could take this reasoning too far, for example insisting on "Fringillidae" solely since "Brambling" does not have "finch" in it. —innotata 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
But what is "pretty common" might not be appropriate for an encyclopaedia. If you saw a spiderhunter, would you say; "There is a sunbird"? Snowman (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"Sunbirds" might or might not be appropriate; you can't assume it's not since there are members of the family called something else. That's all. I think Asia bird guides, the HBW and such use "sunbird" to refer to the entire family; I know the Helm Guide on the family is called Sunbirds, but with a subtitle reading "...Sunbirds, Spiderhunters, ...". —innotata 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with FunkMonk on this one. An article about the whole family should be called "Nectariniidae"; if someone can come up with more examples of how the term sunbird is used to refer to spiderhunters as well as sunbirds sensu stricto, or how we have similar situations in other families, I'd be open to changing my mind on this. I don't think the Brambling example is a good one, as there are lots of other names used for members of the Fringilldae e.g. Serin, Siskin, whereas in this case we have Sunbird used consistently for all members of the family except the spiderhunters, implying that sunbirds and Nectariniidae are not synonyms. SP-KP (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Desert Sparrow

Should the Desert Sparrow be split into two species pages; Asian Desert Sparrow (see IUCN) and African Desert Sparrow (see IUCN). On IOC lists it is not split and has three subspecies there. I think that the current Wiki article is confusing. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What this is based on is Kirwan et al., cited in the article, which brings up substantial differences (traits that may mean the two are not related, as it seems to imply), yet strongly states they are not separate under the biological species concept. That seems strange to me. BirdLife is the only authority to recognise the split, and Summers-Smith was rather sceptical. —innotata 21:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Innotata, where does the Kirwan et al article explicitly state that the two taxa are not separate BSC species? All I could find on this was the following comment, which to me says that the authors lean towards (but don't quite embrace) the opposite view: "In particular, the much-reduced sexual dimorphism in zarudnyi argues strongly that African and Asian populations might well function as separate biological species too, as their quite different female plumages could serve as a barrier to interbreeding in the hypothetical context of their meeting." SP-KP (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Birdlife International names

Almost there with these now. All the English names have been done. Here are the remaining scientific names we don't yet have:

Acrocephalus avicenniae * Acrocephalus fuscus * Aimophila petenica * Alcippe annamensis * Alectoris whitakeri * Amazilia distans * Ammodramus beldingi * Anser middendorfi * Asthenes usheri * Atlapetes paynteri * Atlapetes torquatus * Batrachostomus pygmaeus * Bradypterus kashmirensis * Calidris cooperi * Caprimulgus otiosus * Catamenia oreophila * Certhilauda damarensis * Cisticola taciturnus * Colinus ridgwayi * Collocalia cyanoptila * Collocalia marginata * Collocalia nitens * Crypturellus idoneus * Cypseloides major * Cyrtonyx sallei * Drymophila subochracea * Enicurus borneensis * Eos goodfellowi * Eremopsaltria mongolicus * Fluvicola atripennis * Gymnocrex intactus * Knipolegus cabanisi * Loriculus bonapartei * Loriculus salvadorii * Lorius amabilis * Lorius tibialis * Megapodius stairi * Melozone fuscus * Microeca tormenti * Monarcha malaitae * Myiodynastes solitarius * Myiomela cambodiana * Myrmeciza stictothorax * Myrmornis stictoptera * Nectarinia fuelleborni * Nectarinia graueri * Nectarinia hofmanni * Nectarinia usambarica * Ninox rotiensis * Ochetorhynchus melanura * Otus everetti * Otus nigrorum * Otus stresemanni * Pachycephala tenebrosa * Phaethornis porcullae * Phlegopsis paraensis * Phyllomyias leucogonys * Phylloscopus benguetensis * Picumnus salvini * Platysteira hormophora * Ploceus victoriae * Ptilinopus epia * Ptilinopus mangoliensis * Pyroderus granadensis * Pyrrhura chapmani * Pyrrhura hypoxantha * Rallus obsoletus * Sarcoramphus sacer * Scytalopus opaca * Serpophaga araguayae * Stactolaema sowerbyi * Synallaxis elegantior * Synallaxis superciliosa * Tachyphonus nattereri * Thalassarche platei * Thamnophilus pernambucensis * Threnetes loehkeni * Thryothorus albinucha * Thryothorus colombianus * Thryothorus paucimaculatus * Turdinus marmorata * Turnix novaecaledoniae * Xiphocolaptes franciscanus * Xiphocolaptes orenocensis

SP-KP (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Chapman Swifts

Should the page Chapman Swifts (the page title is a pleural) be merged into Vaux's Swift? Snowman (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is little justification for an article under that name, since the birds are just Vaux's Swifts, and I doubt that the name has wide currency. However, this large roost is significant and better referenced than the parent article, so I've gone ahead and merged the articles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that it an improvement. Do no forget to write links in the edit summary to show where you have cut and pasted text. This is important and helps to maintain attribution for the CC copyright. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how I feel about the Chapman Swifts redirect to Vaux's Swift. After all, there is a real Chapman's Swift. If it was up to me, Chapman Swifts should be deleted or redirected to Chapman's Swift. If redirected, a hatnote on Chapman's Swift might be recommendable if the Chapman School swifts are sufficiently notable ({{for|the roosting swifts at Chapman Elementary School, USA|Vaux's Swift}}... or something like that). 212.10.86.45 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
the roost itself looks notable, it's the name that's less convincing. Perhaps a disamb? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The signpost header sounds like a good idea. Alternatively, the disambig would be at "Chapman's Swift (disambiguation)", because the full species would be the primary topic, but it might only list two topics. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia guidelines, there shouldn't a disambiguation page with only two topics. MeegsC (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
A disambiguation page with two entries is possible if they are of equal notability, i.e. neither is "primary" (→last sentence of WP:2DAB, or 1st line of 3rd paragraph of MeegsC's link; a good example is President Bush). However, I'm puzzled if anyone believes a single roost is as notable as an entire species (unless limiting it to USA ≠ WP:WORLDVIEW). If the names were equal, a disambiguation would be possible, but otherwise the wiki standard is a hatnote. The question is where the hatnote belongs: In my previous comment I mentioned one (my preferred) way of doing it. The other possibility, based largely on the small difference between "Chapman" and "Chapman's", would be to leave "Chapman Swifts" redirecting to Vaux's Swift, and add a hatnote to that article ( {{redirect|Chapman Swifts|the species from South America and Panama|Chapman's Swift}}). There is also the issue of WP:PLURAL for "Chapman Swifts", but one could perhaps argue it's ok following WP:RDR#Purposes of redirects. 212.10.86.45 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have redirected "Chapman Swifts" to "Chapman's Swift" and put a signpost header on the the "Chapman's Swift" species article. I think that this reduces the chances of readers going to the wrong swift species page. I would prefer that the pleural redirect is deleted and a singular version to be used instead. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Curiously, the redirect to Chapman Elementary School goes to a page about somewhere not in Oregon. However, according to the Wiki article, the swifts roost is in Portland, Oregon, so perhaps there is more than one "Chapman Elementary School" in the USA, and the school needs disambiguation also. Snowman (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: someone reverted the redirect on Chapman Swifts back to redirect to Vaux Swift, so I have reverted to target on Chapman's Swifts again and I hope that my explanations to the edit summary will suffice. Also, I have invited the editor to advance the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Conservative treatment preferred ?

Has there been some discussion that older and more conservative treatments are preferred to IOC genus placements ? For instance I am under the impression that several genus splits have been well established for at least 7 years with multiple papers supporting splits and hardly any suggestions to the contrary in peer-reviewed journals - for example a reversion like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Silverbill&curid=686246&diff=516476683&oldid=516198154 related to Euodice vs. Lonchura . Shyamal (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to use IOC as the default (not necessarily exclusive) taxonomic authority for the project. Maias (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I tend to lean towards IOC for genus placements (although not so much for some of the family placement) as well simply because it is updated (even if it is sometimes a bit too much on the bleeding edge) and readily available/verifiable. It is definitely preferable to the use of outdated works like Howard and Moore 3e. Not sure if the fourth edition will achieve anything significantly different from IOC as they too will be interpreting the same research results except to create more conflict and confusion (it is not going to be freely accessible either, according to this ). Shyamal (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've brought it up a few times to have some sort of default in place to make life easier dealing with taxonomy disputes. The problem there is no consensus. It was suggested that we wait for Howard & Moore, but nothing has been published yet (2 delays-now expected Jan 2013 for vol 1, June 2013 vol 2, and no idea how they will deal with updates after publication.). I suggested Clements since they are current and regularly update, some members had issues with it. The IOC is pretty liberal with species treatment, in many cases they are the only taxonomy group offering up a species listing. The IOC has also been shot down as a tax standard by some members. Other than Clements and the IOC, The AOU (both North and South America) seem to be the only groups offering at least annual updates. The IUCN is a little slow with updates, and I'm not sure when and how they notify. Specifically with Indian Silverbill, since we have no standard, I went with consensus. Most of the taxonomic references have it in Lonchura and since the African and Grey-headed Silverbill were still listed in Lonchura, I changed the Indian Silverbill back. All 3 should be treated together whatever we decide......Pvmoutside (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not think there is anyone working intensively on the African bird list. I have a worklist for Asian birds and I am updating entries with some care and find it a bit troublesome having to entirely redo the taxonomic history section which is worked up to explain the current placement. See for instance Black-chinned Laughingthrush and the taxonomy section. If the article is still stubby I would probably have no problem with these changes. Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No authority is perfect. One big plus for the IOC is its accessibility and currency. I think having IOC for English names has been good, reducing the argumentation from those pushing pet or local names. Maias (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Pvmoutside I am not sure why my changes to consistently reflect the view of Euodice (not including Grey-headed Silverbill though) are being reverted. ([4] [5] Shyamal (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that taxonomy on the Wiki should reflect the current literature and research and explain controversies. I think that this would be better than using one authority as a default. Care should be used in the taxoboxes, which can be rather "black or white", and when relevant it might be useful to add the "|classification_status=disputed" parameter. I would tend to think that gathering up-to-date information on taxonomy is complex and a holistic approach would be advantageous. I do not know much about the topic of silverbills and I would look forward to seeing detailed accounts of the taxonomy of silverbills on the wiki. Old (possibly out-of-date) lines from a print out of IOC and Wiki names are (data extracted from IOC and Wiki about 2 months ago): Snowman (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
A good idea to also compare the treatment in HBW via http://ibc.lynxeds.com - in this case most modern works place it under Euodice including major regional field guides like Rasmussen and Anderton (2005). Interpreting sources and majority / consensus should also take into account the taxonomic history and dates of publication of sources. The Grey-headed Silverbill was wrongly listed in the article at Euodice. I have fixed that. I think we can be quite sure that there will be no consensus for using a single source of taxonomy (naming) / systematics (placement) on Wikipedia but it seems like there is no reason why IOC should be a starting point for discussion. Any variance from the IOC placement should really require to be well referenced. Shyamal (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
So I did a quick review in Google scholar. The only study I can find that directly relates classification of the Indian Silverbill is one that disputes the genus Euodice, but it is from 1964. THE TAXONOMIC STATUS OF THE AFRICAN SILVERBILL, LONCHURA CANTANS AND INDIAN SILVERBILL L. MALABARICA by C. J. O. Harrison, Ibis Volume 106, Issue 4, pages 462–468, October 1964......Abstract quote: "The taxonomic status of the African and Indian Silverbills, cantans and malabarica, was examined. The characters used to isolate these birds in a separate genus, Euodice, are not generically valid, and the birds agree in morphology and behaviour with species of the genus Lonchura. The two silverbills show a general similarity in appearance and behaviour but differ in plumage pattern and colour. The call notes are similar but the songs are distinctly different in form, although they appear to share a common basic pattern. In captivity the two forms show evidence of preferential mating and lack of recognition which suggests that they would maintain their identity if sympatric. On this basis they are regarded as two species, Lonchura cantans and L. malabarica."

Any more recent studies or resources simply list the genus as Euodice with no evidence as to why, except for the 2009 study by Arnaiz-Villena, A; Ruiz-del-Valle V, Gomez-Prieto P, Reguera R, Parga-Lozano C, Serrano-Vela I referenced in the Indian Silverbill Wikipedia article where they state there is partial evidence, evidently not enough to suggest renaming the genus from Lonchura by the authors.......For the record, although the species in question are introduced for its assessment, the AOU lists the genus for the two species as Lonchura, not Euodice. In additon, there are many recent studies that are rejected by taxonomic authorities (see the number of rejections the AOU has published for example. Just because a publshed paper is more recent, it doesn't mean it necessarily should be the authority...Hope that helps.......A lot of work just to confirm a genus.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing out on http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01653597?LI=true (1999) and http://www.zfmk.de/BZB/B51_H2_3/B51H23S0.PDF (2003) - for every split one can always argue that does one need not bother about new papers. Unfortunately in this particular case there has been growing evidence over time - from the juvenile down, palate markings, biochemical evidence and behavior to more complete sampling and divergence date estimates in the 2009 study along with suggestions that these two arid-zone species are of African-Indian origin while the remainder moist-zone species of Lonchura sensu stricto are of Australasian origin. Note also that the 11 MYA divergence should be a reasonable basis for considering generic distinctiveness. (For some taxon split time scales "... Mus–Rattus split at 12 MYA (Jacobs and Downs 1994); ... Casuarius–Dromaius split at 25 MYA (Boles 1992)... Coturnix–Gallus split at 38 MYA (Brodkorb 1964) ... Anseranas divergence from other Anseriformes at 65 MYA (Clarke et al. 2005)... Anser–Branta split at 4.5 MYA (Bickart 1990)" source: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/9/1731.full) I think in this case we can accept in good faith the choice of the multiple authors including those of recent regional guides, HBW/IBC, EOL and IOC. An alternate stance in the Wikipedia articles should be accompanied by citations that examine this chain of research and demonstrate the problems in them. Shyamal (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. The 1999 Springer article suggests lumping Padda and Eudodice into Lonchura, and the 2003 article does not mention its reasoning to use Euodice. EOL lists both Lonchura and Euodice pages, with the Lonchura malabarica page containing more information and a photo: [6]. HBW is now out of date, with a more recent IUCN keeping Indian and African Silverbill in Lonchura. I remain convinced to keep them both in Lonchura unless more evidence is forthcoming........Pvmoutside (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me know if you want the paper. It actually suggests that these genera be kept alongside Lonchura in a clade separate from the Spermestes+Odontospiza clade, not that it should be lumped into the genus. The evidence is actually quite good, indeed in this case choosing the older placement in the view of the available evidence should require reliable citations that show problems in the research findings. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
PS: If this lumped treatment is really gaining consensus it should also include Java Sparrow in Lonchura. Pvm any evidence for keeping this out of Lonchura ? Shyamal (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed Timor and Java Sparrow today to Lonchura (simply haven't gotten there 'til today)....I'd love to have a read of Springer. Attach it here and I'll take a look. Thanks Shyamal!...14:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is a temporary link to the Baptista et al. (1999) paper. Shyamal (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
In that case, since the bird is solely located in South America, I believe the SACC should take precedence just as Yellow-rumped Warbler is classified as such by the NACC of the AOU rather than being split into Myrtle Warbler and Audubon's Warbler as some other tax authorities indicate. Unfortunately there is no classification committee for Asia and Africa (or any other region for that matter) for the Silverbills. If we used Clements or the IOC then we can update worldwide and at least have a source instead of doing it peacemeal......Pvmoutside (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Tool

I've added advisor.js to the tools tab Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Poultry

Please note the discussion concerning broad-scale reorganisation and expansion of {{Poultry}}, at Template talk:Poultry. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale taxonomy changes

One thing that really annoys me is where someone comes along and changes taxonomic details to align with the latest fashion and does it without citation and without adding any mention of the previous taxonomy. If you are changing a scientific name, you should at least have the decency to add the old one as synonym in the taxobox. There's an IP making wholesale changes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.98.239.158 which I'm tempted to revert. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC

I've reverted the changes and left a message on ISP's talk. I'll semi protect if necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
In your note to the IP, you said something about reverting changes with references; I assume you meant to say without!  :) MeegsC (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Oops, yes. Fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Caracaras

Caracaras need to be updated immeditely they are really out of date and there is not enough information. I would do it but I dont have the time. Nhog (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (150)

Sometimes a DYK is made from milestones in the Birds for identification series. Is article expansion possible here? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I think article creation is possible here, especially with a great photo to go with it. Maias (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Lamprotornis sp.? --Leyo 11:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like an adult Greater Blue-eared Starling (Lamprotornis chalybaeus). Dger (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Dger (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Dger (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
To add, it was taken in Fremont, California in April, but since I have not found success on multiple bird ID websites, it may not be native to the area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's an adult Black-crowned Night Heron. I saw one in Santa Barbara when I was there in April, so it certainly occurs in California Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: now available on Commons at File:Nycticorax nycticorax -Fremont, California, USA-8.jpg and en Wiki file tagged for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, "black-crowned" <-- no wonder I never found it in bird ID databases! I kept thinking the crown was blue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: file moved by the author to File:Nycticorax nycticorax Newark April 2011.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but the bird appears to be rather worn, in which case, I doubt it's a juv. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
An adult Eastern phoebe based on lack of any eye-ring. Dger (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: moved to File:Sayornis phoebe -Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: now a FP on Commons. Shown on en-Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The current labelling of this bird on Commons indicates certitude, but if there is any doubt about the identification of this bird, then this should be reflected in the image description and categorization on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I have looked at the images on Commons of Chalk-browed Mockingbirds and to me this one matches. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. --Leyo 09:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The current labelling of this bird on Commons indicates certitude, but if there is any doubt about the identification of this bird, then this should be reflected in the image description and categorization on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Considering the expert knowledge I have seen on this page, it is hard to believe that there is nobody here who is able to confirm these rather common birds. --Leyo 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Identification is sometimes not directly associated with how common a bird is. There might be other bird species that look similar making the identification difficult. I think that the view of the bird in front of the wing-mirror is interesting and unconventional. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The bird kept attacking it for a minute or more. I made a few other shots, but none is really good due to the fair lighting conditions. --Leyo 21:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a second version, where details are more clearly visible: File:Thraupis palmarum Chapada dos Guimarães 2.jpg --Leyo 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a Palm Tanager to me, not clear why there is any doubt? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Palm Tanager. MeegsC (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I note the recent comments confirming the identification from two images of this bird. I had a doubt about confirming the identification 100% when only one image was shown here partly because it was a rather unconventional image showing the back of a bird and its reflection in a car wing-mirror. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-automated tasks

Following a request, I have recently updated about 8000 external links to IUCN red-list pages on Wiki bird species pages together with writing updates to the IUCN red-list status. All the edits were written with the help of semi-automatic software and I checked all the edits manually, before clicking the "save" button. I have been watching the pages; nevertheless, I would be interested to hear about any accidental errors or typos that I made, so that I can fix any bugs or at least be aware of likely further problems and fix them before editing. During this series of edits, so far I am only aware of one typo which I missed, and this has been corrected by the user who found it and reported it to me on my talk page. I also made an edit on Desert Sparrow, which was not consistent with Wiki taxonomy, and I have asked for opinions on the taxonomy of this species above. The remaining old IUCN links on Wiki bird articles are likely to be for taxa where there are taxonomy and naming differences between the IOC, IUCN, and the Wiki, and I am aware that fixing and updating Wiki taxonomy and names is an on-going task. I anticipate doing another run after there is an update to the IUCN red list. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Hawaiian accents are a bit of a problem, because I did not realise that some of them only display as a "?" in the basic text editor that I used, so some Hawaiian bird species have not had their IUCN external links scanned yet, and I plan to do these soon. Most accents displayed, but this might have also have happened for some species spelt with the German omulet and other unusual accents. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for semi-automated tasks would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work, Snowman. the only thing that immediately springs to mind is whether all bird taxa articles have a project banner on the talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk page banners; that is a good point. I had not considered talk pages much for semi-automated tasks. I might do a scan to find out how many bird taxa articles do not have talk banners. However, if a bird page has an unconventional title or spelling variation, then it and its talk page might be difficult to find. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just added a bunch of Mannikins and Munias to the Bird wikiproject that were previously missing. It would be worth a scan me thinks......Pvmoutside (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I have changed the IUCN link or added missing links to about 18 more species pages. Any that you have edited and that the script did not edit would be due to taxonomy issues or spelling differences of the binomial or common names. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I started this bot request a while ago in order to get a list of articles with broken links to the IUCN Red List. Have you now fixed all these links? --Leyo 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not fixed all the IUCN links, because the taxonomy on IUCN and the Wiki differ and because bird common and binomial names differ on different websites. I would find it interesting to see the list of Wiki pages that still have dead IUCN links or no IUCN links. My software has not necessarily finished all its work yet, but it has reached a plateau of development beyond which it will become increasingly difficult to improve the software and get it to match more Wiki articles with IUCN pages. Recent WP Bird drives to update Wiki taxonomy and convert common bird names to IOC names have helped enormously, and it is very likely that my software will be able to update more IUCN links as more Wiki pages are brought into line with IOC names and after erudite taxonomy updates. If you did have a list of old IUCN links, what would you do with it? Snowman (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It would depend on the length of the list. A short list could be managed by manually fixing the links. If the list would be long, we might be able to find a semi-automatized way. I've just fixed a few dozen links by updating the links in Template:Redlist CC1994 and Template:Redlist CC2001. --Leyo 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I presume that those links were not links to species pages on the IUCN website. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a list that would need attention to update the taxonomy and check the binomial names prior to fixing the IUCN links. Adding IUCN links might be complicated for many of these pages, because the the taxa on the Wiki might not be an exact match to the taxa on IUCN. I think that would lead to many mistakes if only the common names were matched between the Wiki and IUCN when adding IUCN links. I understand that variations in binomial names can be due to different opinions on how to interpret the abstruse Latin roots of binomial names, or there might be a typo somewhere that could be difficult to trace. I think that a lot of this work can only be done manually by erudite editors and not by a bot. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Comparison of IOC and Wiki binomial names (June 2012) Snowman (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Other semiautomated tasks to consider: Many bird species have no importance assessed. Aren't all species (the ones that are left anyway) gong to all be of low importance? They can be all tagged as low and manually changed for the few that someone may want to reassess? Also, most of the bird articles have photo requests listed on the individual talk pages for the ones still missing photos. Some have photos but still have the need photo tag, a number require photos and do not have the tag, a few do not have photos but have the tag. In the effort to be accurate, can we run a bot to keep them up to date? The omly problem I see is some articles have illustratons but no photos, any way to distinguish?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Importance ratings: I am not sure where the evidence is that all bird articles without an importance rating are low importance. I would not be prepared to do semi-automated edits to give all non-rated bird articles a low rating. I think that doing this an about 4000 bird stub pages would bound to make some mistakes. It would also confuse which pages had been assessed manually and which were guessed to be low importance. Snowman (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No-photo tags: There has already been an attempt to update the no-image tags on bird talk pages with semi-automatic software, but I recall that the editor (not me) stopped after people noticed that he was changing the "no-photo" tag for articles that only showed a painting. It would not be easy for a bot to identify an image as a photograph or a painting; however, it might be possible by automatically scanning with a complex script for clues in the text of the image description of the file on Commons. About two years ago, I scanned talk pages and articles and got a list of articles with a no-photo tag on the talk page and an image of some sort shown in the article, and then updated the talk pages following a visual inspection of the articles to see if it showed a photograph or only a painting. I recall finding about 200 articles where a "no-photo" tag needing amending. Similarly, it should be possible (quite easy) to get a list of articles without an image (photograph or painting), but do not have a "no-photo" tag on the talk page. I would anticipate that the lists for update now would less than 100 or possibly in the low hundreds again. If I got new lists, would anyone be prepared to do the manual work to do a visual inspection of articles and then update the the tags where indicated? Snowman (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're right about the importance problem. There are very few species which are of importance as food or commercial reasons, and I'd be very surprised if any were unassessed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I've skipped over a number of unassessed bird species articles. I've only added the assessment to ones if I needed to make other changes as well. This would only be for bird species, not all bird articles. Perhaps having a taxobox in place could be one criteria to split the species articles away from the other bird articles....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
During preparation stages, I initially got print-outs that included over 50 flea, worm, and protozoa Wiki articles about species (with taxoboxes) that are bird parasites and part of WP Birds. Similarly, some bird parks, bird diseases, conservation areas, books, ornithologists, Disney (Donald Duck) articles, and so on all have WP bird banners on the talk page. Some conservation areas, books, ornithologists, and so on are quite important in ornithology and I think that it would be wrong to automatically label all un-rated WP bird pages with "Low importance". It helps to identify the type of taxobox, and I found it useful to scan for the biological class (Aves) in the taxobox to identify a bird taxa. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would help to first think which articles, or categories of articles, should not be rated as of low importance and tag those before giving the rest a default assessment as 'low'. Maias (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, I'll state for BIRD SPECIES only, not ALL BIRD ARTICLES......an article with a taxobox, in class Aves, and not previously assesssed should do the trick?...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It is probably not consistent with Wiki guidelines to assess the importance of a Wiki article as "Low importance" without looking at it. I think that the un-rated bird species pages need assessing manually. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sillem's Mountain Finch

This species has just been rediscovered after decades of obscurity, and has received some press attention. The article could do with some love, but I sadly have no time right now. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Quandary

In my series of Norfolk nature reserve FAs' I've got to Scolt Head Island. For the animals and plants, I have an excellent source from 1989. I contacted the reserve manager to see if there was anything more recent, but he confirmed that nothing comprehensive had been published since. This poses a problem: if I go to FAC with most of the animals cited to 1989, I'll get shot down in flames, similarly if I say nothing about animals I "know" are there. Any solutions? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing more recent, though I do have a 1934 book (not the journal article) edited by Steers, with chapters on mammals, breeding birds and various groups of plants and invertebrates by others, if that helps. Maias (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for offer, but I have the 1971 edition of Steers, and the 1989 text is Allison & Morley, effectively an updated version of Steers published by his former assistants (he died a week or so before its publication). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
How can they shoot you down if nothing more recent has been published?! That's ridiculous. MeegsC (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, by default, I suppose I'll have to try it and see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Are there any clues to regional bird populations in the British Trust for Ornithology bird atlas? Snowman (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've not seen this resource before, might be useful elsewhere, but the grid is a bit too course. I'll probably continue with what I've got, although I'm tempted to interpolate a species FAC to make a break from north Norfolk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like they are getting results for 2007 to 2011 ready, but I do not know when it will be published. It looks like an update to the atlas (a book), which you have referred to before; see books. The on-line atlas looks useful, so I have added an easy-to-find link to the bottom of the list of external links on List of birds of Great Britain. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The article sounds difficult if there is no recent information. I can not predict how this information shortfall will be received. If you are writing a Wiki book, then I think that the book is still possible using the facility of classifying some articles as "not possible to reach GA or FA" and a good account is made of the available information. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I might see if I can get hold of a Norfolk bird and mammal report, which will have up-to-date info, but may not relate enough to Scolt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the GA/FA process won't pass an article just because nothing new has been published about the site in the past 20 years. If that's the case, then the rules have become ridiculous. If you have the most currently available information, surely that is all they can expect? Or do they expect you to do your own research and get it published somewhere?! MeegsC (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems sensible to me not give GA or FA status to an article on a dynamic topic that is based on literature about 20 years out-of-date, because it would be inherently unstable. See criteria 3c of Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And if it were indeed a dynamic topic, I would agree with you. But I'd say it isn't. And that's the problem with the "rules", if that is indeed what they say. Do they really make blanket statements like "you can't get an FA unless you can quote references that are less than 15 years old"? If so, that's nuts! MeegsC (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for input, I probably will do this, but I'm going to throw in short species FAC first, I should have it done within the next week Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey i would look on natgeo, animal planet and discovery channle. Also here is a link to the IUCN red list (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) see if they have anything when you look up the area. Nhog (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Domestic pigeon task force

The talk page of the subproject has had no edits in the past year, and only two in the last three years, including a RfC. Time to wind it up? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Might it be an idea to widen the scope and fold the pigeons into a general aviculture/domestic bird/poultry sub-project, do you think? I know that this sort of thing has been mentioned on here before. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that just because the sub-project has not had any edits for a while does not mean that the members of the sub-project do not edit pages or that the sub-project is useless. However, I would think that it would be a good idea to raise the possibility of merging the sub-project into the main birds WP project on the talk page of the sub-project. A separate sub-project on aviculture has been mooted, but I think that the topic is suitable to remain part of the main WP Birds project. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I think a task force is worthwhile if there are a minimum of two or three editors actively focussing on an area. I would maybe mark it as inactive at present and leave it at that. I am not fond of redirecting project-space discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Category for flightless birds

I think it is reasonable to add a category for flightless birds. What is your opinion? --Sae1962 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Such as Category:Flightless birds? Maias (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Macaw

I am hoping someone here can help me understand the use of the word Macaw. When I look up this bird in the French and Spanish Wikipedias, they refer to the Ara genus. However, in the English Wikipedia the article Macaw refers to more than just Ara. I can't find any reference that clarifies this issue and I was hoping someone more versed in birds could look into this discussion and help clarify the matter. For example, in spanishe es:Guacamayo_(ave) redirects to es:Ara (animal). Please see the discussion here: Talk:Ara (genus)#Merger_proposal. Alan.ca (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, 'Ara' just means 'Macaw' (referring to any of them, even the ones not within the genus Ara) in certain languages (German, for example). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
For the English meaning, I looked up Ara (genus) and Macaw in the OED. Ara is not in the OED, possibly because Ara is a scientific word not in common use. The definition of Macaw given is "Any of various large long-tailed parrots (often with vivid plumage) belonging to the genus Ara and certain related genera, native to tropical and subtropical America." I think that the OED would be a reliable reference. I wonder if large Spanish and French dictionaries might help with other languages. I think that "Ara (genus)" did include what we class as other genera now, but that classification is now out of date. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Would it help if the Spanish and French Wikis had pages equivalent to "Ara (genus)" and "Ara (bird)" to distinguish the scientific usage and general usage of this words in these languages? or have I misunderstood the problems with other Wikis? I note that similar confusion does not arise in English and I think that the current English Wiki articles about "Ara (genus)" and "Macaw" have satisfactory titles. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"Ara" is a common name in Danish too (referring to macaws, see also Norwegian Wiki[7]), so the problem does seem to have something to do with common vs. genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys, appreciate the effort here. What would be the issue with making the Macaw article a simple list that points to the species that it covers? My goals are to align the languages and minimize content duplication. Alan.ca (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that the article at "Macaws" attempts to cover a valid topic in the English language. A list of macaws already exists; see "List of macaws" for a illustrated list that is logically set out with headings and tables. Also, note that the en Wiki has a navigation box for macaws (see "Template:Macaws"). If you are keen to align languages, then it would probably help to align Wikis in other languages and make sure that they have articles equivalent to "Ara (genus)" and "Ara (bird)" in those languages where Ara (or equivalent) is a word used for the genus and also for macaws in general. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Î agree with Snowman's idea, that seems to be a more sensible solution, given that the use on the English Wiki is correct according to the meaning of the words in English. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I would guess that most articles with scientific titles about taxa should be fairly easy to align, however, the meaning of other scientific words and non-scientific words may vary in different languages, so full alignment between languages may not be feasible. Snowman (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

New category for waterfowls

I think it is reasonable to add a category for waterfowls. What is your opinion about adding a new category? --Sae1962 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Such as Category:Waterfowl? Maias (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This is unnecessary as all are members of the family Anatidae and, thus, are effectively already tagged. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Does waterfowl include pre-historic forms and fossils of Anatidae? Snowman (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
There is at least one fossil goose, the Nēnē-nui, in a subcategory of Waterfowl, since all geese are in the waterfowl category. Is that correct? I suspect that is is unlikely that this goose was hunted as game, because humans did not start to colonise the Hawaiian islands until about 300 AD, so humans and this goose would not have been around on the archipelago at the same time. What definition of waterfowl is being used by the category? Snowman (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Elfin Woods Warbler

At a recent look at older Featured Articles which have never appeared on the main page, Elfin Woods Warbler was identified as an article needing some work to maintain FA status. If anyone has some time to look over and improve it, that would be good. (Be nice to keep it as FA..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Casliber and especially Maias. That is an optimal response. If this WikiProject sees any other bird-related articles on the list, please feel free to do a spot-review. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Article with a trinomial name at title

Cereopsis novaehollandiae grisea has the trinomial as the heading. Comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a very small article that could and probably should be included in the main article with the nominate subspecies. Dger (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - if we start sprouting lead articles for subspecies (races, etc), the information becomes scattered and inaccessible. What's the accepted model? Are there any other lead articles on subspecies? Sbalfour (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of articles on subspecies. No reason why not if there is sufficient material, which is probably the best deciding factor. Whether the article title should be the trinomial is another question; I think not if there is a distinct common name. Maias (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a matter of judgement really. Ssp articles that are just derivative of the main article should be merged with a redirect, but there are others, like Red Grouse, where there is a enough for a stand-alone. I agree with Maias that there should be an English common name for the title if possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger of two hypothetical macaws

It appears that newer sources (Greenway 1967, Hume 2012, Williams & Steadman 2001) consider the hypothetical Ara erythrura as a junior synonym of Ara martinica, which is also hypothetical. Shouldn't they be merged? If no one objects, I'll do it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And another thing, all these hypothetical extinct species are not covered by IUCN, so they shouldn't be labelled as if they were classified as extinct by them in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone was running AWB and added "| status_system = IUCN3.1" to many many pages, but I suspect that these edits were made without reference to the IUCN list; see this and this. This one was added by an IP. I have not checked the edit history of all the hypothetical macaws or the hypothetical Amazona. I will see if I have time this afternoon (rain forecast here) or later to amend them all. Unfortunately, I think that there is nothing ideal for the hypothetical species in the current taxobox structure. Any suggestions? Snowman (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I assume that this will affect the articles Martinique Macaw and Red-tailed Blue-and-yellow Macaw. Personally speaking, I think that if the suggested merge explains the two macaw names, includes references from reliable sources, and reduces the number of pages for hypothetical species by one page, then that is fine provided that the page clearly states that there is very little evidence for the relevant taxa and that they might never have existed or might not represent unique taxa. You might need to synchronise Commons too. If you have merged them already, then you should explain in the edit history of both pages that you have merged linking the other page. This is legally important to maintains the line of edit history for the CC licence. I am sure there is a Wiki policy on what to write in the edit history when merging pages. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I've completed the merge both here and on Commons, you can take a look. No info or sources were lost, and the synonymy is explained. I didn't put the link in the edit summary though, didn't know that was required. Is that policy? Anyway, I've checked the edit history, the same editors (Maias, you, I, Peter Maas) were behind practically all edits on both pages, so credit would be the same. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the pages have already been merged. It would avoid confusion if you had provided an update here. Why is the name "Red-tailed Blue-and-yellow Macaw" not included in the merged page? An undisturbed edit history shows exactly which bit was added by who. Some of the Wiki information on merging is at Help:Merging. I think is also says to add a template to the help pages to indicate merge has happened. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You mean mentioned in the article? It is. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I searched the wrong hypothetical macaw page. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I've frequently gotten lost in those hypothetical parrot pages, Rothschild really left a mess. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that the hypotheticals are a confusing mess. I think that a lot of people misunderstand the hypotheticals and tend to think that they are actually extinct species. I think that the paintings tend to reinforce the illusion. I recall that at one time the Wiki macaw page (or perhaps the Arini or Ara page) counted them up with known extinctions and claimed that there were about six extinct Ara macaws. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the Keulemans restorations are beautiful, but based on thin air... The interesting part comes when later authors have tried to correlate these birds with old stylised paintings of birds that would otherwise seem to be well known species. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have removed IUCN from the infoboxes of hypothetical Amazona and hypothetical macaws. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice! I think we might have problems with other extinct birds too, like moas and similar, which are not covered by IUCN either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What sort of problems? Snowman (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, moas have either been fixed or were never tagged. Other hypothetical birds seem to have the IUCN classification too without being covered. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the moas a few weeks ago. I think that there are other taxobox facilities for fossils and pre-historic species. Snowman (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I have just noticed that Martinique Amazon is on the IUCN list here and so is the Guadeloupe Amazon. The hypothetical macaws are not on the IUCN list. Are these Amazona hypothetical extinct species? My IUCN script would not have worked on these pages, because my script referred to the IOC list as well as the IUCN list and only edited Wiki species pages when the species was on both lists. This was to make sure that the edits did not confuse complex taxonomy. I am thinking about making a less fastidious version of the script for editing selected pages. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Heheh, I see they weren't named by Rothschild, maybe that has something to do with it... And as we talked about earlier, to make the many illustrations Rothschild had made less confusion, we should specifically mention in the captions that they are mere restorations or reconstructions, illustration is a bad word, since it could imply it was actually based on something... FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, after reading this discussion, I started reading a few things on the internet about these hypothetical macaws last night. Has anyone here ever heard of the Black Macaw, Anodorhynchus ater? See here for the blog entry where cryptozoologist Karl Shuker briefly discusses this (alleged) species. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, there are entries for pretty much all hypothetical and dubious extinct birds in Hume & Walters 2012, but very few of them have Wikipedia articles. I don't know if it would be helpful to create articles for them all, though we could maybe make a list. I think the Rothschild birds have articles simply because the plates are so nice. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)A list might be a good idea, unless there's a lot to that can be said individually about any of the individual species. I don't know if it would be helpful to create a bunch of articles that are never going to be anything more than a couple of lines that all read something like "Foo bar is a hypothetical extinct species of <bird> that was described by <John Q. Ornithologist> in <xxxx> - there is little evidence to support its existence as a separate species". Just how many species are we talking about here? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It's quite a lot, the pages about "probable" hypothetical species are covered from pages 327 to 346, each page has two birds on average. Then there's pages 359 to 441, which covers dubious and invalid taxa, including many of Rothschild's birds, and here we have as many as six birds per page... FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, I sent an email to Julian Hume asking why the Pied Raven had been left out of the book, and he explained the publisher had demanded he left it out for some reason, but that he would definitely include it in upcoming editions. I also informed him of a hitherto unmentioned Dodo appearance I noticed in a 17th century painting at a Danish art museum, which seemed to make him happy. Nice man! FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pigeons

Hallo, it seams that the Pigeon Task Force is inactive, so I try to ask you:

  1. Stralsunder Highflier --> Stralsund Highflier
    isn't Stralsund Highflier the English name of the German Stralsunder Hochflieger? I am refering to the EE-List of pigeon breeds. --84.181.55.190 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. There was a deletion request for commons:Pigeon Breeds (EE) at WMC (based on the EE-List). The Page was ment to give an overview about the existing Categories and Files and which breeds are missing. It should also provide the names for translation tables and help non-nativ-english-speakers to locate a special breed.
    The discussion took place on commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Pigeon_Breeds_.28EE.29 and was closed by INeverCry who said out of scope, which I can't follow. --84.181.55.190 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

so if there is someone who is able to provide help, please do so. --84.181.61.183 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

i would assume it is the same. i do not own a book the pigeons breeds.--Ltshears (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It is the same. The question is, what may be the "correct" name and which is badly translated. The list I was refering to can be found with the Entente Européenne d’ Áviculture et de Cuniculture: EE-List of the breeds of fancy pigeons, 2012
The deleted List of EE-Pigeon-Breeds was temporarily restored at commons:Category_talk:Unidentified_pigeon_breeds, for maintenance and discussion only. Yours 84.181.44.242 (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (151)

Rufous-collared Sparrow. MeegsC (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The article in de.wikipedia says that there are 29 subspecies. Z. c. matutina exists in Mato Grosso, but I cannot judge if this subspecies is correct here. --Leyo 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If the subspecies can not be identified with certitude at this juncture, then I think that it would be best to clearly state where it was photographed in the image description on Commons, so that anyone who is interested will know where this bird was seen. I recall that you have had some difficulty with geolocation in Brazil, and I wonder how accurate is the geolocation that you have provided. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Highly accurate. --Leyo 09:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: Moved to File:Zonotrichia capensis Chapada dos Guimarães.jpg. The question about the subspecies remains open. --Leyo 10:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Look like European Golden-Plover to me. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Pluvialis apricaria -Spain -flock-8a.jpg on Commons. I have looked at a number of images of this species and I think that these are in winter plumage. Image shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed based on "Birds of Southern Africa". Dger (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Show in infobox on species page on en-Wiki. Snowman (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have done a web search for images and I see no reason to doubt the identification, but I do not know if there are any other birds that look similar. I would welcome more opinions. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Similar species include congenerics, like Olive Sparrow and Black-striped Sparrow. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I found this drawing pictured on the right in the book Illustrations of Indian Zoology, from which I'm uploading all the plates, but this one could be misidentified. On the vol. 1, we have File:Vanellus duvaucelii Hardwicke.jpg subtitled « Charadrius ventralis », and this binomial name is a synonym with Vanellus duvaucelii, the River Lapwing, for sure. But in this case (in the vol. 2), those birds are also subtitled « Charadrius ventralis », and do not really look like the River Lapwing. Does anyone know what are they ? Non-breeding birds ? Totodu74 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd guess breeding (right) and non-breeding Sociable Lapwing breeding plumage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it seems close. I found this plate too. On the Hardwicke's plate, we can read "Female" on the left, and "Male" for the bird on the right. Are you sure it is breeding/non breeding? Totodu74 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, Hayman records no difference between the sexes, nor do Svensson and Mullarney. The only other plumage is juvenile, which is less contrasty than either of those depicted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
And the text that accompanies your linked image doesn't mention sex differences, just adult/juvenile. If you want a bit of OR, I think the "female" plumage might actually be first summer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I precised the file description, feel free to accurate it :) Thanks for your help! Totodu74 (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Blue-crowned Laughingthrush and it seems that zoo has one [8]. Unsigned edit by User:Chuunen Baka on 1 Nov 2012.
Moved to File:Garrulax courtoisi -Audubon Zoo, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA-8a.jpg on Commons and selected for the infobox image on the species page on en-Wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with Meyer's - more bluish underneath and a touch of yellow on the crown. Compare this Meyer's. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a Meyer's Parrot as well. Moved to File:Poicephalus meyeri -Birds of Eden, Western Cape, South Africa-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured content news

White-eyed River Martin was our 100th FA, so something of a landmark. I'll do a little analysis of our FA content when I get a little time. I'm working on getting African River Martin up to FA too, since that will make our only Good Topic up to Featured Topic. Then it's back to the Norfolk nature reserves... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Following on from the above, if anyone has referenced info on the African River Martin that's not already there, I'd be grateful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! Wow 100 FAs...sorry, not a topic I am familiar with. Let me know if you need fulltect access to something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record, Mauritius Blue Pigeon is up for FA now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
And so is African River Martin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weet-weet

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weet-weet. -- Trevj (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • "weet-weet" is included in article on the Common Chaffinch on a referenced line saying that it is an alternative name for the species. The on-line OED has it as a bird call and also as an old name for a Chaffinch. Does anyone have any references for weet-weet as an alternative name for any other birds. Are there any references for any sandpipers being called "weet-weet"? Snowman (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weet weet" is also an Australian childrens' game, which I have just started; see www.ausport.gov.au. Perhaps, it could be a DKY. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Bird vocalization does not have anything on how bird calls can be written down or described with text. I think this is been discussed here for editing wiki-pages, and it would be interesting if literature on this topic was summarised on the "Bird vocalization" page. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no reference for Weet-Weet = Chaffinch in either Lockwood, W B (1993). The Oxford Dictionary of British Bird Names. OUP. ISBN 978-0198661962. or Jackson, Christine E. (1968). British Names of Birds. Witherby.. The nearest is Weet Bird = Wryneck. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

upgrading Macaw article pages

I've substantially upgraded the Spix Macaw article page, which is graded "Start Quality". I think it's "better" now. Can somebody take a look? I'm also looking at the related macaw articles, which are a mixed bag. If these are going to be an ornithological resource, they've all got to be a lot better. Can somebody tell me what they'd like to see there that isn't? If I know the info, I'll be happy to add it. Doing a revamp on an article can take months of research, though. Sbalfour (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job, more of the same would be more than sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Rated as B; no reason why it should not proceed towards GA. Maias (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do the work for GA. The article has been expanded and copy-edited by me and others since a fellow member upgraded it to B. Now it's the nitty-gritty: somebody has to carefully review it and advise me on the next step. Sbalfour (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You're well on your way, and after this first GA, I'm sure you'll have a lot of experience so the process will be less painful in the future, so to speak. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Scripts

I've been working my way through this list, and I've found some of the scripts really useful. Obviously, whether you use any or all of them depends what you want to do. Some, like the duplicate links detector, are invaluable if you're working an article up to GA or FA. Worth a look if you're not a regular user of these scripts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Locked pages XI

Some more locked pages if someone can do the honors......

Thanks...............Pvmoutside (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have ran my IUCN script over the new ones and some were suitable for editing. The species not edited must have a difference in the common or binomial names between the Wiki, IOC and IUCN. I would suggest checking for anomalies in the binomial names in the species pages that the script did not edit. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Geronticus be moved to bald ibis? FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I would not object if Geronticus was moved to "Bald ibis", but I wonder if this could lead to confusion with the Southern Bald Ibis and Northern Bald Ibis articles. I sometimes find the common names for the genera King parrot and Thick-billed parrot confusing with species names. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Until I corrected it (made it worse?), bald ibis was a redirect to only one of the species, so I'm not sure what is going on. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

I found a reference to Le Gerfaut:De Giervalk, Volumes 55-56, p69. I know roughly what it says, but I don't know the article's title or its author. Can anyone help? Of course, if you have the text, that's even better, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask the publisher of this journal which is the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique http://www.sciencesnaturelles.be/ --Melly42 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
These guys are pretty good at finding stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
First attempt at the Institute using their science info address was returned as undeliverable, trying again with general info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The resource request guys here are really good. They once found me a specific page[9] with an illustration (of the Réunion Solitaire) in a Dutch publication from 1854 so obscure that recent authors cite later crude tracings[10] of the illustration as being the original. So thanks to them, Wikipedia is actually more accurate than the scientific literature... FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope so. While I'm waiting, does anyone have access to Jennings, Michael C (2010). Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Arabia. Fauna of Arabia, volume 25. Riyadh and Frankfurt: King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Saudi Wildlife Commission and Senckenburg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum. ISBN 978-3-9299-0783-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)? Of the four freely available pages, two (pp. 500–501) deal with the Pale Crag Martin, but don't reach the end of the article. I suspect there isn't much to come, but would welcome reassurance. I'll post this on the request page too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gatewayeight - anyone able to run their eyes over his edits?

Aside from adding Category:Cockatoo to various cockatoo articles, he seems to be here to mess around (adding Category:Parrots to inappropriate pages, random removals, fact changing, etc.). Anyhow, do we really need Category:Cockatoo (which he created) and Category:Cockatoos? Any objections to me reverting all his current edits and redirecting the new Cockatoo category to the old one? I was reluctant to do so last night as some of his contribs did appear constructive at first glance. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, block him if you feel it's justified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Blocked after he carried on follwing lv4 warning. All edits reverted. If anyone believes that we also need Category:Cockatoo, please feel free to un-redirect it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Herring Gull

Should Herring Gull not be a redirect or an article rather than a disambiguation page? FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how a redirect would work, but perhaps a stub article might be a possibility Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A slew of Good Article Nominations....

See Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology_and_medicine and scan down. There are a bunch of bird GANs and some look in pretty good shape actually...be good to buff up our audited content :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think somebody may need to have a chat with the professor for the course all these editors are involved with. I've had a look at a few of the articles and most of them should be quick-failed; they're certainly not ready to bring to the GA process—particularly considering the huge backlog that's already there! Yes, they can be improved. But reviewer time would be better spent working on articles that are close to being ready, rather than ones that need lots of help to get there! In several, the lead sections consist of a single sentence. Because this is a behavioral sciences course, there's scads of information about some interesting behavior (typically mating behavior) and only scanty information about anything else (unless it was already there). I think it's great that these kids are helping improve the articles, and certainly want to encourage them. But I'm not sure that having them nominate three and four articles at a time (and review each other's articles) is the best way forward. MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the students have been overenthusiastic but it might be an opportunity to pitch in and balance some of the excessive emphasis on behavioural strategies, ESS and game theory. I only hope the GA attempts are not tied to their grades. Have alerted Dr Joan_Strassmann at User:Agelaia about the discussion. Shyamal (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed one of them[11], it needs huge improvements, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Certainly more constructive than mere quickfails. If we're lucky, they'll know how to do it properly after their first tries. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that students are reviewing their peers articles? If students are reviewing their friends GA nominations, then I think that these reviewers would need to concentrate on being objective owing to a possibility of a conflict of interest. Should they declare a COI? Are there any guidelines on the level of editing experience needed to be a GA reviewer? Could a GA review be declared null, if a COI affected the reviewing process? Snowman (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that the Spix's Macaw article could have been quick failed, because it contained a lot of unreferenced text, factual errors, and for several other reasons; however, an experienced reviewer took it on. I suspect that it will be a mammoth task checking facts and tidying up and I doubt that it will achieve GA standard in 2012. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it'll be pretty good when it is done though. I think when SBalfour has finished this one, he'll know what to do and what not to do next time, and be able to improve many articles. So walking him through now will be a benefit later on. I only started writing articles after having lurked for several years, if I'd begun right away, it would probably had been disastrous... FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that it could be possible to find a lasting hobby as a Wikipedian and learn a smattering of Wiki lore from nominating an article for GA and following it through. However, I guess that it is probably easier to learn the ropes at one's own pace by making small amendments and additions to articles of interest. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have told the students in the class that now the behavior parts of the assignment are done, they need to attend to the rest of the article content. I have told them about using only open source images and about referencing everything they find. Many of these birds are super important to our understanding of the evolution of behavior. My students are very interested in this whole project. We will spend the rest of the semester focusing on getting the articles to a much better standard, not just the behavior section. They have been so grateful and appreciative of all the attention the Wikipedia community has given them. The level of interaction has been really good. I agree it is very useful for them to be told what to fix, if I haven't done it, than to just shoot them down immediately. I have also told them to read GA and FA a lot. Then they can start doing more reviewing. I have also encouraged them to start contributing to areas they are experts in that have nothing to do with my class. Thanks to everyone for their help in engaging these students as permanent Wikipedians. Agelaia (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians specialise and are interested in welcoming new users and I understand that some monitor and assist new users for a while. I wonder if the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee have resources to offer a batch of new science editors any practical support? Of course, many Wikipedians would help new users from time to time, but the Welcoming committee might offer a more organised approach that would minimise any adverse impingement on the Wikipedia and optimise assistance to new editors. For some thoughts on communicating with new users see; Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Snowman (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The only thing that frustrates me is that this (see point 5) is why we have a slew of half-finished articles being submitted all at once. Hopefully, some of these editors have been bitten by the same Wikipedia bug that bit all of us, and they'll be back to finish what they started! :D MeegsC (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I see. It says that their "Assignment 8" ended on 27 November 2012. Assignment 9 ends on 6 December 2012. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Gibson's Albatross

I have put together a start-class article on this taxon since there was a bit of discussion here about it (and because some nice images were available). I do have some concerns, however.

  • Taxonomy – is there any emerging consensus as to whether it is a subspecies of the Wandering or Antipodean Albatrosses, or a good species? For now I have placed it under Antipodean as the BLI option.
  • Wingspan – the figures I quote have a respectable source – a scientific report published by the NZ Dept of Conservation – but they seem too small, only half what I think they should be. Any other info?

Any comments and improvements would be very welcome. Maias (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • That was my first thought - that it was a simple mistake, but the source definitely says 'wing span' and also gives measures for 'wing length' which are a lttle under half the former. Maias (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Onley and Scofield (2007) Albatrosses, Petrels and Sharwaters list the "Wandering" group species as Snowy D. exulans, Tristan D. dabbenema, New Zealand D. antipodensis and Amsterdam Island D. amsterdamensis, but note that NZ is sometimes split as Antipodean (nominate) and Gibsons D. gibsoni. Wingspans are 250-350 (D. exulans) 300 (D. amsterdamensis). Wings for the other two (wingspans just given as "?") are just over 63 for females, 65 for males Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. That tends to confirm my suspicion that a mistake has been made. If 300 cm is about right for a great albatross wingspan, the 63 and 65 for wing length is less than a quarter of it and is probably wrong. Those last figures seem to come from the same (presumably) mistaken source I used. Maias (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ...and Harrison (1985) Seabirds p. 46 predictably doesn't split, but gives Wandering span as 300cm. Let me know if you need the details of the Onley ref, but its probably quicker to nick it from Amazon's website Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You could ask the photographer how big the albatross looked? Perhaps, he has photographs of this albotross with other birds or something else to measure it against. Snowman (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure what your point is, Snowman. The figures Maias used are clearly inconsistent with established secondary sources, and not just by a few cm, they are half the correct figures. You are looking at the difference between a 10-ft wingspan and a 5-ft wingspan. An albatross with the latter measurements couldn't possibly be any of the Wandering-type species. In any case, we aren't being asked to identify the image, we know what that is, it's to sort out the obviously incorrect figures from a supposedly reliable source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have removed the dodgy wingspan measurements. I know that they have an apparently good source and that WP is not about what is true but about what has been reliably reported, but I do not feel comfortable leaving them in. Maias (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Question at the Science Reference Desk

Hi, I asked if anyone could help ID a bird for me at the Ref Desk and an editor suggested I should ask the project. The question is at Unidentified Bird in Neighbours if anyone is willing to help. - JuneGloom Talk 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, this looks like a Common Bulbul, which isn't supposed to be in Australia! It's not an Australian Hobby, which is one of the things suggested by the reference desk. MeegsC (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the footage of the bird is just a stock shot and the producers weren't particularly bothered about matching up species and location? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SomewhereAnOrnithologistIsCrying is worth reading for more examples of bird-related errors in fictional works... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My guess is a Willy Wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys). It is found all over Australia. Dger (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure, but another possibility is a butcherbird. If Neighbours is filmed in Melbourne that would be Grey Butcherbird. Maybe someone could check measurement compared with that of a standard? house brick. Maias (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The bird was sitting on the chimney of one of the houses used in the show, so I don't think it was a stock shot. If anyone wants to see the brief glimpse of the bird, then it's about a minute into this video [12]. - JuneGloom Talk 19:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a Common Myna - introduced and common as muck... :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hybrid bird of paradise articles

There's a ton of two line stubs for these birds[13], and I think it would be better to simply redirect them to the nearest higher taxon article and place the information there. Any thoughts? Those birds that may be valid species (like Elliot's Bird of Paradise) should not be merged, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the nearest higher taxon for a hybrid? Why not put them all on one page in a list? Snowman (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Genus articles, for example, if they are hybrids between species within the same genera, as most of these are. And maybe a list or a single article could be a solution. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There are various options:
  • Leave as separate, albeit mostly stubby, articles. I have no problem with this.
  • Merge to main family article. Not a good idea; there is a summary there already and adding the illustrations would bulk it out a lot.
  • Redirect to genus articles. This would be a bit messy; some of the hybrids are intergeneric and some are uncertain. However, it would be worth at least mentioning the hybrid forms in the relevant genus articles, where it has not been done already.
  • Create a new article - basically a list as suggested, though it could go into the whole history of Stresemann 's work and the disputes that arose from it - and lump the separate articles, keeping the illustrations. It could have two sections - one for known or confirmed hybrids, the other for possible or probable hybrids. I have no problem with this either.Maias (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the last option is best, though we wouldn't need an article for possible hybrids, they could keep their individual articles, since they are possibly valid taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree if you need some help ask me I may be able to help.Nhog (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'd like to see some more views before action is taken, but perhaps it isn't much of concern to most people? FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I like the new article option, with the various stubby articles rolled into it. Anything that reduces our number of stubby, unlikely-to-be-expanded articles sounds good to me! MeegsC (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that getting a consensus prior to re-organising the bird-of-paradise hybrid articles has been given importance here. Having done tasks involving hundreds or thousands of pages myself, I find that prior discussion and consensus is a useful gauge for doing the right sort of thing and tends to reduce the chance of making a mess. Nevertheless, be prepared to think on the hoof to overcome unseen problems when actually doing the edits. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There are about two dozen hybrid pages, so I would guess that the work can be done satisfactorily with manual editing quite quickly. However, if there are any simple repetitive tasks where semi-automated tasks might help, please let me know; for example, I could "wipe out" a number of specified hybrid articles, replace them with a given redirect, and provide suitable edit summaries in a few minutes. I would tend to suggest doing complex repetitive tasks manually here in view of the relatively small number of pages involved.Snowman (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Most of the section here[14] should probably be summarised and the content be moved to the new page where it is expanded with text from the individual articles. An important thing before we begin is to establish which of these might be valid. I've read a few features of Elliot's Bird of Paradise (colours, size) make it distinct from either of the proposed parents, so that should not be merged. Are there any others that might be valid? FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Valid what? Do you mean valid species? Snowman (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have a rather dated and hard to find volume by E. Thomas Gilliard - Bird of Paradise and Bower Birds, 1969. I will try and find time to see if there is anything useful about such hybrids.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Follow up to the above comment. I have checked the book, and the list on the wiki (derived from Beehler & Frith. Though the list of hybrids in the Gilliard (taken from Rand & Gilliard (Handbook of New Guinea Birds, 1967) are by and large in agreement, two questions regarding the original descriptive spellings when published of two of these hybrids has come up. The first, and I think that I have established that the original spelling of one of the hybrids should be Neoparadisea ruysi, Van Oort (1906) which was published with that spelling in notes from Leyden Museum, where he was curator at that time: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1906.tb07819.x/pdf
I do not know why the spelling was changed, nor by whom, to Neoparadisaea, but it seems to be an incorrect amendment.
The second, and I have not yet been able to access the original publication, is the spelling of the specific name by Currie (1900) for Cicinnurus lyrogyrus (which seems to be the original acception), but found in the Beehler & Frith (according to the wiki list, but I lack that source myself) as being spelled lyogyrus.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Does the article use a wrong spelling? FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There are two accounts from 2012 (Extinct Birds by Hume/Walters) and (Drawn from Paradise by Attenborough/Fuller) which both regarded Elliot's Bird of Paradise as valid --Melly42 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

FA/GA/FT news

Réunion Ibis is a GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Would creating stubs for the extinct new world vulture genera have any effect on it being a FT? FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Some Latin came up on the Spix's Macaw GA over the meaning of "psitta" and "psittacus". I have attempted to look them up on on-line translators, but I am very much a novice with Latin. What do these mean in English. Is one feminine and the other masculine? Does one mean "little parrot" and the other "parrot"? Snowman (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Is "psitta" ever written by itself? See here: http://wordinfo.info/unit/1775/ip:15/il:P FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I should have explained that one issue in the GA discussion is about the meaning in English of "Cyanopsitta spixii". To see the discussion search for "which part of Cyanopsitta spixii means little?" on Talk:Spix's Macaw/GA1. I presume Micropsitta (pygmy parrots) means little parrot. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I am sure Psitta is just an abbreviated form or Psittacus, but this abbreviation only came about with botanical descriptions. I will try and find out. Interesting mystery. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
@Snowman, Psittakos is Greek for parrot, I assume psitta is just a shortened form, so Cyanopsitta is "blue parrot". @Funkmonk, re potential FT, I imagine that we could keep the FT to extant taxa, the existing FTs don't have any articles for extinct taxa, although most are swallows, so not much to find anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The topic for the FT could be "Extant vultures" and this would not include extinct vultures. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, just New World vultures will do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, Jobling's etymology of Cyanopsitta is "Gr. kuanos dark-blue; Mod. L. psitta parrot. Amend. Cyanopsittacus." I just belatedly added this link to the project's Resources page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have just used it as a reference for the meaning of "Cyanopsitta". I note that it is used a lot in bird articles, so it would be worthwhile making a Wiki article for the disctionary. I did not know that cyano- was from Greek. In Latin would cyano- be from Old Latin or New Latin? I am not very good on Latin. Snowman (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Snow, yes from the greek. The closest from old latin would be indicum and this is not an exact pairing of the hue of the blue. An aside, and anecdotal since I am just recalling a memory even though my memory is rather eidetic, and that is that the original etymology even before the greeks coined a word for the description of this particular hue of blue was probably from a non-indoeuropean word possibly from ancient southeastern anatolia, or thereabouts, that was used to describe this particular tone of blue since they engaged in a flourishing commerce of locally found lapis-lazuli, however, as so often happens when we are constrained to deal with very ancient history there seems to be some confusion on this point because some maintain that the greeks may have been attempting to describe not the hue of this semi-precious gemstone, but rather a rather important ancient dye extracted from certain shellfish of genus Murex, and now called Tyrian Blue. Steve Pryor (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Mauritius Blue Pigeon passed FAC, now Broad-billed Parrot is up. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Phedina

Any ideas on the etymology of this swallow genus name? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • PS: Note that Jobling, in his intro, also says "Although authors such as Jean Cabanis and Harry Oberholser took pains to provide etymologies for their newly created genera, those of the stamp of Prince Bonaparte and Gregory Mathews seldom threw light on the origins of the names they coined". Maias (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It shouldn't be! Poor James isn't earning the royalties he deserves... MeegsC (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ostrich (journal)

Resolved

Can anyone access Mills, Michael S L (2007). "Brazza's Martin Phedina brazzae: new information on range and vocalisations". Ostrich. 78 (1): 51–54. doi:10.2989/OSTRICH.2007.78.1.8.52. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)? It's just the description of the vocalisations I need, thanksJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Superb Fairywren

Hello, this article said that two subspecies were recognized, cyaneus and cyanochlamys, but IOC scores 6 for Malurus cyaneus. I try to figure this in theses edits but: images captions sometimes give the subspecies cyaneus or cyanochlamys... are they correct ? and which is actually the composition of the two groups of sub-species? Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Totodu,
You read too fast to assimilate. The article speaks of two subspecies "groups"!Steve Pryor (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The map is misleading. It infers that the colored zones correspond to the ranges of the six subspecies if they are treated as two subspecies groups in a species complex but the captioning does not make this clear, and rather it makes it appear that we are looking at the ranges of just two subpecies. The latest authoritative australian work that looks at the relationship of the various races is the 2008 Christidis & Boles, and they do not seem to put that much stock into even dividing these races into two groups. Perhaps somebody that possesses the HANZAB can provide further insight. It should be remembered that many times when we speak of any polytypic species the further attempt at subdivision into subspecies groups (that usually has the implicit argument that maybe somebody will try to split the groups at a future date) are not always well-founded in objective analysis. Personally, the reasons for attempting this further subdivision in this particular species seems to me, but this is just my opinion, rather sketchy. At least one (the Flinders I. ranger) would seem to be intermediate. If you can find for me the locations of the photos that you talk about, I will review them myself and assign the races.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Steve, you read me too fast! The subspecies group were not existing before my edits. But in fact I'm not sure of the attribution of samueli, elizabethae, leggei and ashbyi in the "cyanochlamys group"! IOC said off se Australia so I put them in the mainland group, but it has to be checked. Thanks for your message and your links, I'll try to make it clearer in my mind. Please feel free to correct (to precise, to give sources) my text. Best regards, Totodu74 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Gregory Mathews was a severe splitter and many of his subspecies are not recognised. Certainly variation is noted but the Australian consensus was to keep at two subspecies for the moment. The IOC are one step removed from all this and literature sticks to two. Unless something amazing has happened which I've missed in the past couple of years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, I read that about Mathews. If the literature says two ssp, we have to write two. :) Totodu74 (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Schodde & Mason (1999), which is presumably the IOCs source, accepted six subspecies, as well as a zone of intergradation between cyanochlamys and leggei in western Victoria. Christidis and Boles do not really look at subspecies. Maias (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A new redirect

Re: redirect at North Island Kea to New Zealand Kaka. Kea is a different species to Kaka. There are no Kea on the North Island. Surely, Kea and Kaka are very old names for distinctive birds. I think this redirect needs deleting. Any comment? Snowman (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just redirect to Kea. Fossil material of a small kea has been found in the North Island from c.10 kya, but I don't know that it has been formally described. Maias (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think redirecting to the genus is the best target. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Now redirected to Nestor (genus), but I think deleting it would have also been satisfactory. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Lists of birds by population

I draw your attention to this new article, with its accompanying lists, created by User:PhnomPencil. Maias (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (152)

Given the locality, yes. Maias (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a Rufous-bellied Thrush? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe you're right on both counts, Snowman. It's not an American Robin, and due to the Portuguese, I bet this was taken in Brazil. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael (though I'm not Snowman :-). Now all we need to know is what species it is. Where's Steve Pryor when we need him? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Jerry! I don't know that I've ever seen anyone else post a photo for ID here! Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can list a bird here for identification. Snowman (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
For more clues - the contributor added File:Cambacica_jaboticabeira.jpg and File:Columbina_talpacoti.jpeg Shyamal (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Those are both extremely widespread Neotropical species. I'm afraid they don't help, even if they were taken at the same location. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jerry. I am still here, but I have been distracted with all sorts of familial obligations for several months. I just got back from escorting my aging Mother to the Holy Land (they started shooting rockets the day after we left). In any case, you are right. Turdus rufiventris, nominate race in my estimation, that is somewhere from SE Brazil. http://www.wikiaves.com.br/sabia-laranjeira
By the way, if there are birds that have remained with no ID since I have been absent, give me the links and I will have a look. Steve Pryor (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. I'm glad you got out before the fighting! I've updated the file description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Young male or female Green Pheasant. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of the images that I could find on the internet are adult males, which have yellowish irises. See also File:Phasianus versicolor(Male female).jpg, which appears to show a female with pale irises. I presume that Bird 1526 is not an adult female. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're seeing, but females have brown--not yellow--irides. I think the iridescence on the bird means it cannot be an immature female. This may be considered a "dark morph", as it seems most female Green Pheasants do not look like this, but there are many examples of this plumage on the web, and I've seen it personally on Maui. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, this seems to me to be one of those instances in which attempting to give a definitive is somewhat of a reach. Woburn Park has some regulated breeding programs, but it also has birds that are kept in promiscuous environments. Melanistic morphs are known not only from versicolor. There are melanistic forms that have cropped up every now and then from the selective crossing of various races of colchicus, and they have been known to naturally occur where the two species are sympatric. Without a whole lot of information about what birds Woburn has, and how they are managed, well, I tend to think that though Natureguy could be right, that for a fuddy-duddy stickler like I am, I would just need to know more.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
To be on the safe side I have added; "A rather dark-coloured bird of unknown pedigree." Anyone, who is certain of the identification, is welcome to edit the image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's the nominate race, but very unlikely to be wild unless this zoo has some very unusual habitats. In June, BWstilts should be breeding in colonies on fresh or brackish lakes, not wandering around on grass. and it's wearing a ring. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Stuttgart is not near to the sea, so the bird is unlikely to be near natural brackish water. I have just done a bit more searching prompted by your reply. Stuttgart is known for some wild animals in the zoo grounds; see zoo's web-page. However, this species is listed as being held by them; see Zootierliste. Update: sub-species added to image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Bird 1528. File:Centropus superciliosus -Tanzania-8.jpg | White-browed Coucal to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, it would be interesting to know the exact location within Tanzania. The ranging race of C. supercilosus in virtually all of Tanzania is C. s. loandae, and this is not loandae. There is a very small sliver of extreme southeastern coast where race fasciipygialis ranges (looks like race burchelli). This particular bird is an adult, and its morphology is entirely consistent with that of the nominate C. s. superciliosus, which ranges in a small zone of northcentral Tanzania. The upshot, exclusively on the morphology, yes, it is White-browed Coucal, nominate race superciliosus, and adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of parrots in captivity, sorted by species...

...including zoo, pet, aviary breeder, etc. birds (i.e. any parrot kept in captivity). Does this information exist anywhere, does anyone know? Just something that came up as a result of a post I made on Talk:List of Psittaciformes by population. I do suspect that no such detailed count of captive parrots has ever been carried out (except for high risk species such as the Spix Macaw and Kakapo), but it's worth asking because I know that some of you folks have access to resources that are not available online... Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you will never receive an adequate number as many parrots are held as illegal pets --Melly42 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
(It's just passed midnight here - Merry Xmas to everyone, by the way)Yeah, I thought that might be the case. Are there any figures for legally-owned pet parrots knocking around, do you (or anyone) know? Those could certainly be added to the list, with a suitable caveat... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this Philippine Eagle fanboyism again?

See this diff. I don't have the source (Ferguson-Lees, J.; Christie, D. (2001). Raptors of the World) available to check whether the statement "Harpy Eagle is arguably the most powerful extant species of eagle as no other species, with the possibly exception of the Crowned Eagle" is actually mentioned there or not. I'm not sure if the given reference is even for that bit, or the next sentence anyway... I remember that User:Informaticz has been in dispute with people about the size/weight/strength of the Philippine Eagle before - I got the impression (just my opinion) that he was previously trying to embiggen (what would seem to be) his favourite bird at the expense of other, similar species. Thought I should raise this here, as I know that he's been discussed before... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, this does appear to be an ego-driven thing. It depends, I suppose, on how one defines the word "powerful". The Crowned Eagle is designed anatomically through genetic selection to be a bird capable of penetrating into thick understorey - broad, short, round wings, etc. Pithecophaga is a soar-hunter for the most part. It patrols above canopy, then swoops down picking off inattentive animals that sort of stick out of the canopy in an accessible manner. The wing structure is much different, the wings longer, the bird much larger. The Harpy seems to possess an anatomical structure selected for with both hunting stratagems in mind.
  • The Crowned Eagle is known to possess an incredibly powerful, and lethal grip rivaling that of the Harpy. It is capable of breaking the spine of animals weighing as much as 20 kg. Obviously, without dismembering such a prey it would be incapable of lifting an entire animal of this weight.
  • To my way of thinking, if you have to compare the two most powerful extant Raptors, they would be the Harpy, and the Pithecophaga.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
"Powerful" to me strikes me as somewhat nebulous and (possibly) NPOV. I think sticking to concrete measurements and well-defined feats might be safer....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed that line from the article altogether for now. I'm assuming (yeah, I know what 'assume' makes... anyone have this book?) that the 'Raptors of the World' ref is for the next line, about the Harpy Eagle favouring prey over 7kg, anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Good choice, it was pretty NPOV-ish. Most powerful grip? Wings? What? Sometimes you've just gotta take out the scissors. PhnomPencil (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to a belated birthday book token, I have this book on order, should be able to check within next week Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks okay as presented in the lede of Crowned Eagle, as it goes on to explain what 'powerful' means in that context - but the others, less so. I've tagged the uses of 'powerful' in the Harpy and Philippine articles. It's rather a shame that there's no mathematical formula that may be used to calculate the power level of an eagle (unless there is)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Google 'crushing power' and it easy to find items such as (with regard to Great Horned Owls) "capable of generating a reported 500 lbs. per square inch in crushing power. (By way of comparison, human males average about 60)". Presumably such things are calculable from data such as cross-sectional area of the relevant muscles and crushing surfaces. Maias (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've got the book. The text is purely descriptive, with no comparison between species or use of the word "powerful". No prey weights are given, although in each case (for Crowned, Harpy and Phillipine]]) one or more large prey items, like monkeys, are mentioned and sometimes illustrated. Crowned is described as taking small antelopes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Digital recreation

Re: File:Glaucous macaw.jpg Is this a useful artists recreation of a Glaucous Macaw or should it be removed or deleted, because it is original work. It has appeared on the en Wiki species page. I think that the image is interesting. I have left a message on the author's talk page on Commons and I have invited the author to participate in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The main problem I see is that there is no indication of what the source image is. If copyrighted, it needs to be deleted. Otherwise, I see no problem in having it on Commons, as long as it is clearly labelled as a mere restoration. But using it in the article is a little iffy, since we do have images of what the animal actually looked like. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, the intent is laudable. However, it would have been better to start with the other extant Anodorhynchus (the Lear's Macaw) because though massive the Glaucous did not have the bill of the Hyacinth Macaw, it had a different shape (resembling that of the Lear's again)for the periocular skin, and again more resemblant to the Lears', were the yellow lappets of the the two mandibular bases. Further, the artist most likely got his idea for the amount of grey from the few, but very foxed, skins or mounts that still exist of the Glaucous. The bird in life did not have this much grey on the breast, and the head grey was also more of a greyish wash on turquoise blue with the most grey being on the lores, the frons, the crown, and the superior nape, and this grey dissolved into turquoise blue as it proceeded caudad from the bill insertion. Further, respect to the Hyacinth, on which this image was recreated, the overall tint of the mantle, the coverts, the upper tail, etc., was turquoise-blue, and not this deep blue of the Hyacinth. Further, the undertail color here is wrong - it should be greyish, and not blue.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have removed it from the en Wiki species page and one other language Wiki. I will think about how to describe it on Commons. I think that it should be deleted from Commons; however, all sorts of unscientific images can go on Commons and there may be people who want it kept. I think it should be deleted because it had no scientific nor educational value. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Commons also has stuff like this[15], so I wouldn't hold my breath. And yes, those are external testicles on a dinosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Assistance requested on the Glaucous Macaw article, because the author has restored his digital creations on the page by reverting my edit. My recollection from Foreshaw 2006 is that the Glaucous Macaw is more like Lear's Macaw than the Hyacinth Macaw in size, and I think the recreations tend to give the wrong impression for a number of reasons as listed above by User Cuckooroller. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You could always try talking to them and pointing them at this discussion. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have mentioned above, I have notified the uploaded of this discussion on his or her talk page on Commons (user has same name on Commons and en Wiki). Nevertheless, I have just invited him to advance the discussion by leaving him or her an additional message on his or her talk page on en-Wiki. I am not sure if the uploader is also the author. I have just noticed that the images appear to be copyvio from this photoset on Flickr and that they are modifications of the Commons file File:Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus -Disney -Florida-8.jpg. This new user has also added digital recreations to a few other macaw pages. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
On the Commons there is a message that the image is scheduled for "speedy deletion" because its copyright category is invalid for Wikipedia. Unless the author has permission from the original photographer the "recreation" will have to go. Dger (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that Flickr account is owned by the same editor. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted for second time on en Wiki. Copyright and educational value issues can be discussed on Commons, meanwhile I think that the images should be kept off all language Wikis. Assistance requested to watch pages. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

....I did not have thr purpose of making such a inconvenience. Now I have uploaded a new corrected version of the image. It were taken into account all observations made here by the contributors. However, I wish to delette many of my images from Commons and I do not find the way to do so. I ask for assistance. Rod6807 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

On the left side under tools there is a "nominate for deletion" option. Click on that, and write that you as the uploader want it removed, due to incorrectness or some such. That is usually respected. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice, they are now proposed for deletion. Rod6807 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bird sounds

I'm sure most of you are aware of xeno-canto. I'm one of the administrators of xeno-canto, and I just thought that I'd mention that we recently re-designed the site. In the process we added a choice of licenses for the first time. So now there are finally recordings that are available under a wikipedia-compatible license. The default license is still too restrictive for wikipedia use (BY-NC-SA), but there are a small number of BY-SA recordings now (mostly my recordings at the moment, but a few others are starting to upload under this license as well). You can find them by using the 'lic:by-sa' search query. Hope this is helpful. Jnthnjng (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to see progress. Shyamal (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've started a discussion of this on Wikimedia Commons; and created a template for linking to xeno-canto: {{Xeno-canto species}}. The latter will be useful where there are no or few files for species on Commons, and those on XC don't have an open licence. I have also asked on the XC forum for reciprocal links to Wikipedia. Don't forget, too, that XC is welcome to upload files from Wikimedia Commons, providing it complies with the applicable licences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it Wiki policy to add these as external links? Is this website have information that could not be expected to be found on Commons? There are a lot of Wiki guidelines about external links. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:EL allows for such links. I suggest you also read the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
See WP:LINKSTOAVOID; "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think that these links should not be added. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Right now, we've got thousands of articles with no sounds at all. We have thousands of articles that are unlikely to get sounds any time soon. There is no requirement in the FA process which says that a sound is a mandatory requirement for FA status. I say link to the xeno-canto website. It's a non-commercial, non-profit site which is gathering a growing number of recordings from all around the world. It's a great resource, and one which will supplement the meagre information which is currently available on the vast majority of our bird articles. And if they're beginning to put up CC licensed recordings, that's great! MeegsC (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that #1 allows actually for these links. As long as we don't have the sound on commons (and it may not always be trivial to get it!), a site like this would add unique content, content that is actually useful even if an article has FA status. IF a sound is uploaded on meta, it is not that unique resource anymore, and may need to be removed (if it does not add anything that is already in the article ...). Care may have to be taken for WP:SPAMHOLE-effects - if there is one of these sites, next ones may come in because 'they do the same as the other, and if the other is there, this one should also be there', which may result in 15 different sites for certain birds. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that this could start a new trend and before we know it there might be multiple template banners to external sites on a lot of birds pages. Sound files are found on Commons. What is the unique resource on this external website? Snowman (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I again suggest you also read the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Snowman, we only have sound files for a tiny number of species. They are not widely available for most of the species in the world. Which is worse: an external link or no sound file at all? I think it's important to put the link, so people can hear what species sound like. If we're able to find a correctly licensed, useable sound that we can import to Commons then we can remove the link. It mystifies me why anyone would want to remove a useful link just because we have recordings for 100 or so (out of 10,000) species! MeegsC (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you also have a specific licensing policy on sonograms generated by the system. Shyamal (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
hm, that's a good question. At the moment, we are not explicit about the license for sonogram images. However, If I'm not mistaken, the sonogram images for all SA-licensed recordings should legally have the same license as the recordings themselves since they're derivative works of the audio files. Would it help if we stated that explicitly on the site? Jnthnjng (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be the right interpretation of SA, and yes I suspect it would be a good idea to be specific about it. An aside about the NC clause is that (also worth checking this article doi:10.3897/zookeys.150.2189) strict adherence would mean that a site does not conduct any commercial activity including perhaps obtaining funds to run it and one could go on even to question the creativity involved in the process of recording (perhaps settings on an instrument dial?) to actually allow the applicability of Copyright laws. Shyamal (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have revised the template. It now has three parameters; two for genus and specific name, both mandatory, and a third for a common name or other display text, which is optional. The template defaults to displaying an italicised binominal name; would it be better (before it is more widely deployed) to default to showing the page name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Might be nice to have a variant that supports full COinS metadata and in line with the citation templates (for specific call recordings with accession number) so as to be usable as a reference for call descriptions. Would be much appreciated by researchers who use Zotero or other reference managers. Shyamal (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Some websites have videos with sound of the birds calling. What is special about a website of only bird sounds? Snowman (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Depends if "some websites" tag up their videos to say which have bird sounds and what quality. It can be a pain to wait for a video to load in to Flash or whatever only to find the song is rubbish. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
What is special is that it has sounds for most of the species of the world. The same cannot be said for videos. MeegsC (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
What is special is that it has sounds recorded by people who know the birds and it has a good number of eyes and ears doing a kind of peer-review. Shyamal (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Basic data for a genus page

I'm sure others will have noticed that many of our genus pages have very little information on them - some just having a list of species and a taxobox. I thought I might spend some time improving some of them. I'd like to find out what other editors' thoughts are on the basic information that should appear on a genus page. My own thoughts are:

  • current and past views of the genus's parent taxa (family/subfamily/tribe)
  • list of species currently included and any others previously included, or others not included but which might belong
  • any closely related genera
  • the date and name of the genus's author, and the type species
  • main and alternative English names and any similarly-named genera or species whose names suggest they are in the genus, but which aren't
  • main morphological features which birds in the genus share
  • distributional information (e.g. what is the total range of the genus, and where is its main centre of diversity)
  • any notes on habitats used
  • any comments on the conservation status if the genus contains a high proportion of threatened species

What do others think? SP-KP (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds great. MeegsC (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Great list! I usually use similar items, sorted into sections as follows:
  • "Intro" section (first paragraph(s) ): main and alternative English names etc & main morphological features etc & distributional information etc & any closely related genera etc
  • "TaxoNomSystPhyl" section: current and past views of the genus's parent taxa etc & the date and name of the genus's author etc [& homonymies, remarkable synonyms etc]
  • "Species" section (perhaps subsection of "TaxoNomSystPhyl"): list of species currently included etc
  • "Ecology" section: any notes on habitats used & any comments on the conservation status etc
Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
In the interests of consistency, it might be worth looking at the structure of genus FAs and GAs, like chough, Delichon, nuthatch, pelican and river martin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Pigeon Hollandais.jpg

Hello, anybody here having an idea how this file of the extinct bird from the Mascarene Islands should be renamed? Is there a Dutch name for it? Lotje (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be renamed, it is referred to as such even in English sources, see for example Cheke & Hume 2008. Mauritius was under French rule before the bird went extinct, and French Creole is still the main language there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine by me. Lotje (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I have a question about the attribution of the color image used on the Mauritius Blue Pigeon page. I will take it on faith that a certain Haasbroek executed a line drawing, reputed to be from a live bird, somewhere around 1790, and apparently from the one known live individual ever brought to Europe, to the Netherlands. However, the color image offered on the species page seems to have been a later rendition effected by a certain Prof. H. Schlegel, in 1884.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
According to what exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the fact that I found the original line drawing, in black and white but with another bird with only the head peeking into the drawing, and the same entire Pigeon as in the color image, but in black, and white. The color image when enlarged has a visible attribution, Prof. Schlegel. The logical conclusion is that he took the original line drawing and just sort of copied the shape of the original Pigeon and filled it in with color.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
According to Hermann Schlegel was not a professor. Lotje (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
He became professor in 1858: S. erhielt nur die Stelle als Director mit dem Titel Professor (ADB) --PigeonIP (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Until 2011, the colour version had never been published before, so it seems you are misunderstanding something. The image had only been printed in black and white books before that, but always existed in colour. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a longer text in an earlier version of the image, but it is not in very high res. FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: do you have a high res of the earlier version?
The attribution may be: ex(p) Auct. Prof. H. Schlegel 1884. (a) Auct. is lat. auctorum = originally intended by the author (=coloured by Schlegel?). (b) ex: maybe extinct? It would be highly appreciated.
with best thanks to Dr.cueppers and FA2010 --PigeonIP (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No higher res yet. But Schlegel was a 19th century scientist, whereas the image is from 1790, so I'm not sure which indication there is that he coloured it? No sources make such a claim. Similarly, this 1626 image[16] had George Edwards' name and other things inscribed on it in 1750, for no other reason than the fact that he donated it to the museum. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It is all speculation because of the visible attribution that raises questions. Are there other sources about this? What is the attribution for? --PigeonIP (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, the sources don't have anything to say on this. I guess it may just have been in Schlegel's possession at one time. I don't see why anyone would want to colour an antique drawing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't Schlegels handwriting but a Provenance? of a 1884 auction sale of the assets of the deseased Schlegel? ex Auct[ione] = "from auction Prof. H. Schlegel 1884"? --PigeonIP (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I can tell you no more than what the paper says. Caption: "FIGURE 21. Haasbroeck's watercolour (c.1790) of a displaying Mauritius Blue Pigeon Alectroenas nitidissima. This is the first time this painting has been reproduced in colour. Image courtesy of Jip Binsbergen, Artis Bibliotheek, Amsterdam." And as for other text on the image: "This account, which was hand-written in Dutch, was added to the back of the original illustration by Arnout Vosmaer, director of menageries and cabinet of the Prince-Stadtholder William V of Orange-Nassau. Vosmaer may have been preparing a manuscript describing animals held in the menageries and cabinet (Tuijn 1969), but this was never completed." FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

SORA update

Hi folks, SORA has been updated http://sora.unm.edu/ as some have already seen I presume. This means that all "elibrary.unm.edu/sora/" links need to be updated to new format. I think it might simply be replacing this with "sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/" and then the journal, issue etc as in the old link format.

Probably the people at WP:TOL should be contacted, someone needs to run a bot over this but make sure it does not screw up. Maybe initiate botrun for each journal manually, so we have a rollback time/date in case sth is fucked up. (The link format was not 100% standardized in the old SORA, so it may be by simply running the bot once across all affected pages will break some links.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Arg! I wonder if Snowman can write a semi-automated program to crawl through and check these for us... MeegsC (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a smattering of Perl. If all the changes conform to this pattern, then it would be really easy and the script need not scan the journal on the external website. The journal articles are in pdf format, which makes it a bit more difficult for a script to scan the article, but I think it can be done by using a module. I would guess that the new links are each in the same style. If anyone is aware of any old links (or new links) that are in a different style, then please list a few examples? If there are different formats for old links, then there is no reason why a script could not deal with them and transcribe them to a new link. I have been busy in real life and might be for a while, so I can not attend to this in detail at the present time. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll send them an email, and ask if they can provide us a list of "before" and "after" formats for each journal address. MeegsC (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the DjVu-Files? --Melly42 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that I could write the code and have something working within the hour, if I knew all the possible patterns of "before" and "after". It is indicated above that all the old links were not 100% standardized, and I think that is would be useful to be aware of these and write code to deal with any non-standard urls. Some of the old links have already been tagged with a "dead link" template, so I could write a few extra lines to remove these when updating the urls. I would be cautious and spend a day or two testing on short editing runs before doing long runs. Snowman (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't yet received a response from the technical people at SORA. They sent a form letter (when I submitted my email) saying someone would be in touch within 48 hours. MeegsC (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I've received an email back from their tech department, saying they'll put together a table for us. No time line though... MeegsC (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

More bird songs

User:Fae has done a sterling job, uploading 366 open-licensed files from Xeno-Canto to Commons:Category:Xeno-canto. Please help to add these to articles, where appropriate, and, if you're active on other-language Wikipedias, notify interested editors there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant. Hope s/he has a script that can be run periodically to incrementally convert and add new additions to Xeno-Canto. That would be a great route for those that have been holding out due to their inabilty to convert MP3/WAV to Ogg. Shyamal (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
He. Such periodic updates are in hand, I believe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR for all

It is now possible for non-institutional individuals to read articles at JSTOR for free. You only need an account at JSTOR and than you can take up to 3 items on your shelf for 14 days. After 14 days you can remove the items and you can take 3 new items.

Register page

http://www.jstor.org/ --Melly42 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice, is it permanent? FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Am I the only one who can't see the image referred to here "Please enter the words you see in the image below:" FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
In the event that you need better access, I got one of the 100 full access JSTOR accounts issued a little while at least, I imagine that I'm not the only project member to sign up for this, but I don't know who else. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I've got a full access account as well; it's good for at least 2013, and is proving very useful. If you don't have an account and would like to ask for one, here's the sign up list. In the meantime, feel free to let me know if there's a source you'd like checked out. MeegsC (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
you have permanent free access to up to 3 articles for 14 days (or more if you put the same items for another 14 days on your shelf). But it is not allowed to save them as PDF. And yes, the capture code sucks --Melly42 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be able to stand having to do this, and this doesn't get around the fact that JSTOR essentially locks up way too many journals. Do continue to ask me and others at WP:RX for PDFs. —innotata 18:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Eurasian Bullfinch

Over the past few days I noticed on the Bullfinch article that Ornithodiez removed some images, I couldn't quite see what he was doing to the article other than remove some images. He didn't provide any rational reason for removing this content so I have restored it back again, I don't understand why he needs to remove some pictures. I find the images good for these articles as it helps with bird identification, it shows the commonality for the species across the different countries as well as the differences. And there really arn't many pictures of the common Bullfinch on there.

I do pop in on this project sometimes as I am a bit of a keen bird watcher. So is there some new policy that I missed about removing images that are perfectly fine? Govvy (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Images should be relevant to, and integrated into an article. The place for image galleries is on Commons, not in article space. In this case, one image is identical to the taxobox image, clearly not needed. The others show different plumages, so I'll make them more relevant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
ye, but now because of the alignment of the images, it's made the article look funny by pushing text out to the right of the page. And I don't understand what's wrong with a gallery for bird articles. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Images are stored on Commons. Click on the link near the bottom of the page in the box which contains the text; "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Pyrrhula pyrrhula" to see a collection of images of the bullfinch. Images can usually be artistically rearranged in larger articles, but this is more difficult in smaller articles owing to lack of space. Snowman (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sibleys app

hey guys just to let you know there is a app for iphone and i presume other stuff as well that has the complet or at the very less the majority of the birds in the reguler paper books i am finding it handy. It does cost money but it is about 5 to 8 american dollars. Just thought you may want to know. Nhog (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Refspam?

Would the members of this project consider these contributions to be refspam? It looks that way to me but I wanted to see what others thought.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are very good sources, that in most cases need to be used to create a comprehensive article, and I appreciate their addition; the contributor appears to have some difficulty writing in English. —innotata 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I have to side, at least until the sources and their relevance in situ are verified, with Berean Hunter on this. All of those citations are being added, with edit summaries of "completing bibliography", as inline <ref> citations, in the article text, which positions them as alleged sources for particular statements in the article, without there being any indication that they are in fact such specific sources. They're not, as the editors says, additions of general bibliographic material, in form. If they should be, then they're being added incorrectly and misleadingly. If they really do source the specific facts in the article they're being adding in a way that suggests they do, then the edit summaries are incorrect and misleading. The sources may in fact be reliable, but our articles in question do not need those sources in particular unless it's clear they're being used properly. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Historical Ornithology of Shropshire

A new website, The Historical Ornithology of Shropshire (England) has a wealth of archive martial, some of it out of copyright. Enjoy! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New World vulture

Hello all. I'm currently reviewing New World vulture for GA status. It was nominated by an editor who has not contributed to the article and is quite close, so I hoped that some of you would be interested in doing the final polishing. Danger High voltage! 14:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look at it for you and see if I can perfect it in anyway. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Blue-footed Booby

...was nominated for GA some time ago. I picked it up to review and it's not looking too bad...but the nominator is inactive. I was tempted to close it as unsuccessful but thought I would post here in case anyone felt some enthusiasm for working on the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I may be having the same problem at Crested Auklet, but the nominator keeps coming back and disappearing again. Did any of those school nominations ever pass? FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I passed Black-throated Blue Warbler a while ago. It seemed to come together more easily. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I just passed the auklet too, but only because another editor fixed the last issues. It seems there are still a few of those student nominations up (Procellariiformes, Barbary macaque), and that no one dares to review them. What should we do about them? Reviewing them might be in vain, since the nominators may never return, but it is not possible to quick fail them, because they don't reach those criteria either... FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Huia, or The huia?

Saw this edit on my watchlist - a correct change to make to a bird FA or not? And if not, why not? BencherliteTalk 23:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoo boy, here we go again... Bird names are capitalised by common practice. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It was only on my watchlist because I scheduled it as TFA a little while ago (I'm not an editor of birds articles, but I thought that the edit didn't feel right) so I thought someone here would know best what the deal was. BencherliteTalk 00:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
All good. Thanks. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Field Recordings

Hi there. Sorry if I have come to the wrong page, but I am one of the editors currently trying to restart the Featured Sounds project, and I came across this resource which has hundreds of field recordings of birds under CC-by-SA license (i.e. they can be used by Wikipedia). I did a quick browse through some of the bird articles you have here and some are missing sound recordings (although some clearly have some video). If you are interested in using them I did a search by license here. The home page for the site is here. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently these are (or were) on the queue for import into commons - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_63#Bird_sounds Shyamal (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Great news! Glad to see that this resource is being used! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As often happens with online resouces (and this is a good reason to use WebCite), the hosting site has moved stuff around. I was able to figure out the new path structure. Someone with more WP:AWB-using or WP:BOT-writing patience will have to fix this mess, which is probably thousands of citations.

Old URL format: http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v083n01/p0126-p0128.pdf

New URL format: http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v083n01/p0126-p0128.pdf

In the interim, I've prepared a citation template that uses the new URL format; I would strongly encourage using this template when fixing all these URLs, so if UNM changes it yet again, which is probably inevitable over the longer term (just in general, not simply because "/sites/default/files/journals/" is absurdly unintuitive, which it is), it can be fixed site-wide by just tweaking one template:

{{SORA}}

Usage: |url={{SORA|Auk/v083n01/p0126-p0128}}

Output: |url=http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v083n01/p0126-p0128.pdf

Note that it does the lower-casing for you.

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been pointed out here that some of the old links had a different structure, so this has delayed me fixing them all with a script. I would not plan to use the new template, because it would be easy to amend the links with script assisted semi-automated edits and write in the url conventionally. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It certainly makes sense to use a template - if the site has a well defined structure (which did not exist in the past) - and it appears now to be so - and gives single point control in case of any future URL prefix changes. Shyamal (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Locked pages

Large Saint Helena Petrel should be moved to Saint Helena Petrel (IOC name synch) --Melly42 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY - move did not need any extra privileges. Shyamal (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Eagles

The usage of Eagles is up for discussion, see talk:Eagles (band) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Page move

Otus jolandae should be moved to Rinjani Scops Owl (IOC name synch) http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/proposed-splits/ --Melly42 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I moved it a couple of days ago, but it was reverted. Maias (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A recent move was not supported by in-line references to verify its new IOC name and there was no edit summary; see this edit. Unreferenced amendments can be reverted. Snowman (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The common name is also stated in the scientific paper. Thus the IOC has accepted the English name we should do the same --Melly42 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Addition:The article needs expansion and more substance. If you want to expand it here is the scientific description: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053712 --Melly42 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the page and cleaned up the the other multiple mos errors in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Composite image

A while back there seemed to be a dispute about including a composite image in the taxobox on the birds article, but as far as I can tell it was never really resolved. Last night I created a composite image and added it to the article (compare: before and after). I hoped it would be both gorgeous and informative, and I don't think it turned out too bad. The image includes 18 (or perhaps 17) orders of birds. Any comments, criticisms, suggestions? --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks good, but I think it would be hard to see the birds at thumbnail size. I think it should have less photos, with no borders. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I was asked at my talk page to comment here. I like the image, and I don't have a problem with the borders. I do think that a case could be made for fewer individual images, but I'm able to see each of them reasonably well. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I too was asked to comment. I would choose a different Owl image, and would have chosen a Hoatzin. A Condor or Albatross would have been nice. So would two Passerines. But as it is the image is gorgeous, and I prefer the borders. Great work. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I too was asked to comment. It's a bit busy, but it's a nice image and a good improvement on the older composite, eliminating the issues I had with that one. I agree with Medeis that it should probably have a passerine or two; that is the largest order of birds, so should probably be represented. MeegsC (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. The images are excellent but I agree that there should be fewer. I have seen other composites but never one with so many images. Dger (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Does there really need to be two toucans on there? Could one of them be replaced with a passerine? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback everyone! I feel bad about the passerines too; I don't know how I missed them. I'll fix this soon. Anyone have a favorite passerine they want to nominate? As for the Great Hornbill and Keel-billed Toucan, I believe they represent two different orders, but perhaps one of them has to go to make room for a passerine. Anyway, how strongly do people feel about reducing the number of images? I kept it at 18 because I thought File:Animal diversity.png and File:Spiders Diversity.jpg looked nice compared to File:Extant reptilia.jpg, which I think has too few images. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yah, one of them is a hornbill. Sorry, please disregard. Damn that convergent evolution. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We talked about this before - but I don't think the issue is the quality of the pictures - or how they are composited - it's that a tiny thumbnail image is just too small to subdivide. So I've gotta say my mind is still against this. SteveBaker (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we have discussed this before and my opinion has not changed since - while it might make sense to have a wide representation of birds - it raises more question - where are, one might ask, all those near-birds with so much more variations? Which in turn would raise the question of "what is a bird" which essentially cannot be answered in pictures, as it is hard enough explaining the whole tree, problems in data, interpretation, cladistic terminology and so on. I am quite happy leaving it simple with one image that is representative enough for a layperson and large enough to show up on low resolution mobile device. Shyamal (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I was invited to comment, having been involved in the earlier discussion. The new composite is truly gorgeous, and it looks fine on my 10 inch Android notepad. If it is too small for its purpose (ready visual ID of the article topic) on a smaller mobile device, then we should go for the single image, though. Most of the sub-continent and the rest of the third world accesses the net on mobile phones. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort that went into the new mage and I think the type of images chosen are brighter and more suitable for a composite. However when viewing it on my iPad I still found the images too small; I had to bring the screen close to my face to work out the top middle was a shoebill and the bottom middle was an owl. It looks even worse on my old desktop. If we have a composite then I think no more than four images, stacked if landscape or two and two if portrait. At present I'm sorry but I cannot support a composite if you have to squint to work out what is being shown. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a very good image, but I share the general concern that the lead image should be effective as a thumbnail on any platform. I appreciate the wok that's gone into this, and I won't lose sleep if the consensus is against me, but personally I would prefer fewer species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the single image for the meantime. What people seem to be saying is that the composite is pretty, but individual birds are hard to distinguish. I think we should either stick with the single image we have now, or rearrange the composite to include just the best four images. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Great, I look forward to seeing the new image. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that it is a beautiful composition and it will make an excellent infobox image sized with a width of 300 px. All the birds there are colourful. Why not put one little brown bird in it? Snowman (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue with the borders is that they contribute in making the individual images even smaller at thumbnail size. If the borders were removed, each image would be bigger in relation to the frame. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If you're going to go for fewer birds, do six (two wide, three deep) rather than four, and keep in maximal physical diversity. (Although I still support the current 18 bird image with a greater width.) E.g., Ostrich, Hummingbird, Penguin, Condor, Pelican, Sparrow or the like. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of a composite representing the range of size, shape and habitat, and I agree it should be no more than six images or it's too busy. I know it is not easy. Thanks for working on this.--Brambleshire (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, thanks for the feedback! I've given it some thought and have decided to abandon this project. I just don't see much enthusiasm here for a composite image. With few exceptions, most editors have replied with either a firm "no," a tacit "meh" or a muted "yes." That doesn't leave me with much confidence, and I'm not comfortable implementing changes that will leave other editors unhappy. If a consensus is eventually reached and someone would like to make a smaller composite or improve on mine, knock yourself out, but I think my energy will be better spent on a surer thing. For the record, I've decided the single image we have now is probably the way to go. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the desire to bail. Just about everyone has been supportive of what you have already done, and has given his druthers only because you have asked. I still support using this new 18 order image with a 300px width over posting one passerine at a time as if that covers even a small fraction of bird diversity. Given the support for the composite we should stick with that unless a better composite is given, and Chocolates or whoever does the work should be the one to design the next image, not naysayers who do nought but say nay. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I dimly recall the reason we don't fix the size of the taxobox is that it messes things up for people who have a particular setting they prefer, there was a user I remember dealing with that was very against us setting it at anything for this reason (I used to set it larger for clarity). At any rate given the wide range of displays we potentially have to cater for, from small smartphones to tablets to massive desktops, we have to bear in mind making the image usable for the widest range of potential users as possible, which makes multiple small images a hard sell. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Viewing small images and small writing is not necessarily a problem on smart phones, because zooming is easy. 300px is the max size for chosen settings, so people have complained about fixed image sizes less than this, but would have no grounds to complain about an image fixed to 300px. The Wiki guidelines to cater for images with small details to be shown larger. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_63&oldid=1142661792"