Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Missing Reference re Bufflehead

The Bufflehead article says, "Buffleheads are monogamous...". There is no reference supporting this statement. I have seen many non-Wikipedia articles about the monogamy of other bird species, which later became corrected by DNA research. I would very much like the article to show a reference of such research if there has been any regarding the Buffleheads. If there are none, then the article should be appropriately edited. Such an edit might say that it is generally believed that the Buffleheads are monogamous, but there is no current DNA data available about this. BuzzBloom (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Often wondered about how monogamous lovebirds (i.e. the first bird/animal people think of when monogamy is discussed) actually are. The Patagonian/burrowing conure really is - and that seems to be something notable enough to be commented on. --Iloveparrots (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

BuzzBloom, they are indeed almost completely monogamous — one of the few duck species that is. They keep the same mate for multiple seasons. I'll add a reference to the article. MeegsC (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Large article redirected without discussion in 2017?

Take a look at Bird-safe. Just noticed this now. With this edit, it was redirected to Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity (which doesn't seem related to the topic) with the summary Can someone burn the prev. essay/OR rubbish with fire??. User who did it doesn't seem to have been active on Wikipedia for years. Should this be put back? --Iloveparrots (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, no. 75% unsourced, and what there was of sources is blogs and store sites. This would have to be newly constructed from the ground up, and hardly any of the earlier material would be of any use in that respect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say no as well, for the same reasons that Elmidae did. Better to start completely over if you think we need a "bird safe" article. MeegsC (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to take responsibility for it (or at least I don't fancy re-writing it at present as it seems like an enormous job), but I note that there's still a bunch of stuff linking to it and it still appears in categories... --Iloveparrots (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the links and categories. What should be done with Bird-proof now? It's currently a disambiguation page, but if I remove the link to Bird-safe, it would only have one entry. Should I redirect to Bird control? --Iloveparrots (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like redirecting to bird control would be the way to go. If/when someone gets around to writing a new bird-safe article, we can resurrect the disambiguation page. MeegsC (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done that now. Thanks. I might add a few lines to companion parrot about the steps people take to 'bird proof' their homes if I can find any useful refs. --Iloveparrots (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a black-headed gull?

I just saw this was added recently to the black-headed gull article when I came to edit something else. This is a different species, isn't it? I don't know what it is, but I've never seen a BHG with eyes like that. Just wanted to check before I removed it. --Iloveparrots (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a Brown-headed Gull Somatochlora (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In that case, if it is removed from the article, we should also change the category and description on Commons so it doesn't get added again or to other language Wikipedias. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I did a request for renaming it on Commons and added the correct species category. --Iloveparrots (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Caracara update coming

In accordance with a mid-December 2020 decision by the South American Classification Committee of the AOS, IOC taxonomists have lumped the southern and northern crested caracaras. SACC called the result "crested caracara" (Caracara plancus), so IOC probably will as well. When the next full IOC list including this change comes out, the articles Caracara (genus), southern crested caracara, and northern crested caracara and the redirect crested caracara will need to be merged into one article. The article Caracara (subfamily), the disambiguation page caracara, and probably others will need to be updated. Someone familiar with both the species and the mechanics of the merging will need to do this. (I have the first but not the second.) Thanks in advance! Craigthebirder (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that lump with be part of 11.1, which I assume comes out in week or two. The article history is odd. The northern crested caracara (Caracara cheriway) started out as Crested Caracara (Polyborus plancus) in 2004 and a new article article was started for southern crested caracara (Caracara plancus) in 2007. The species epithet moved articles. I'd like to know the proper procedure for merging these articles and retaining the histories but have no idea. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, the project admin who regularly deals with stuff like this, says history merges are rather frowned upon these days. Presumably, we'll need to make sure the crested caracara article contains all the bits now in the two redirected articles and the genus article, and (once that's done) all three of those will need to be redirected to the crested caracara article. MeegsC (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the Genus article Caracara (genus) should be included in the species article merge. As noted in the genus article there are at least five named fossil species, including Caracara creightoni and Caracara tellustris which already have articles.--Kevmin § 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point Kevmin. MeegsC (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Are they ever gonna split the Eclectus, does anyone know? I saw that the IUCN accepted the split. --Iloveparrots (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of an Eclectus split on the IOC diary page or the split/lump page. As the next list will be out soon that probably means it won't be accepted in IOC11.1 and it will be at least July (and IOC 11.2) before the split is accepted. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just wondering. IUCN, Birdlife and the World Parrot trust all have individual entries for the 4 new species now. --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Here, by the way https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?query=eclectus&searchType=species http://datazone.birdlife.org/quicksearch?qs=eclectus https://www.parrots.org/search/results/e14daf2932729e7dfd55e42110268e1f/ --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is some further information on the split: Eclectus Parrot (Eclectus roratus) is being split: assessment of newly recognised taxa.—  Jts1882 | talk  18:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just browsing the Birdlife Data Zone and it looks like they've split Psittacula according to the proposed taxonomy here too. Some confusing names in it. Alexandrinus doesn't include the Alexandrine Parrot, nor does it include Psittacula alexandri (which isn't the Alexandrine Parrot). --Iloveparrots (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

IOC 11.1 udates

In the pending IOC updates there will be substantial change in owls. By my count there will be ten scientific names changes, one new genus, at least three genera subsumed into others, and one species split. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The draft version of IOC 11.1 is available at IOC Master Lists. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that Pamela Rasmussen has joined the IOC editorial team, changes to the entries for American birds are made only after the changes have been agreed by SACC and/or NACC. To speed up the process Rasmussen et al have put several formal proposals to the SACC committee. The IOC list now notes that "proposal needed" while previously the changes would have been made unilaterally. This should mean that the IOC list keeps in step with the AOS and Clements - which makes our lives easier. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a worrying note on the IOC master list page here. After describing the organization of the web pages there is a note in red "NOTICE : We may retire these pages for 11.1". This may break all the wikipedia links to the ioc pages. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the referencing will need attention, although hopefully they will redirect all old links to the new one page. I will modify {{BioRef|IOC}} to use the new system and I think it will be possible to link to the specific rows in the googlesheets list, which hasn't been possible until the switch to google sheets.

I also noticed the proposal needed additions. In the owl changes they moved the striped owl to Asio clamator (from Pseudoscops) but kept the Jamaican owl (Pseudoscops grammicus) in Pseudoscops, despite noting its nesting in Asio in Salter et al (2020), with the note "AOS NACC retains it in Pseudoscops; proposal needed". The SACC had a proposal on Asio clamator. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: "I think it will be possible to link to the specific rows in the googlesheets list" - but we don't want the links to break each time the ioc list is undated on googlesheets. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It would only be the anchor changing. The link would still get to the correct page. As it is any citation based on an old version of the IOC list will link to the latest version and the link may break with changes to the website (e.g. if they retire the BOW pages without redirects). The validity of the citation relies on the |version= and the |access-date=. With a template there is potential to correct broken links or make a best possible replacement, possibly even using archive.org, to help people find the information. Perhaps with google sheets they will keep the old versions available on the web (e.g. like Catalogue of Life). —  Jts1882 | talk  11:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes to owls have been done...finishing up the rest....pvmoutside...

IOC update

Just an FYI, the IOC has released 11.1 on their update pages, but have yet to finish the family genus pages. As soon as they do, I'll start the update. Feel free to make any changes if you know them.....pvmoutside...

Looks like they will be retaining the BOW pages, although the posted sheets have issues. The headers are offset two columns and the code and comments column are missing. I think this might be an example of why they are considering abandoning these pages in favour of a single google sheets page. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Photos vs Artwork

A number of bird pages rated as stubs include artwork (drawings or plates from historical bird books) rather than photographs in the taxobox. If a good photograph of the bird can be found, is it desirable to replace the artwork with the photograph? Or is it better to simply add the photograph to the article and leave the original artwork in place?

I'm guessing the photograph takes priority, but I'm wondering if this is the consensus view. Adaptivity77 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There was discussion of this in the European Nightjar FAC[1], see Aa77zz's and Crisco's second points. I think in general we should use photos unless we only have very blurry or otherwise unclear ones. Perhaps it should be a guideline? FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The historical images get used because they are out of copyright and there isn't a good photo. I'd say the taxobox should always pick a good photo over artwork when there is a suitable choice and the artwork can go elsewhere in the article. By good photo I mean a good quality image showing the salient features. Sometimes the artwork will show features better than a good photo if the bird is partially hidden. In short, it will be case to case but the photo is preferable. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Jts1882 - Aa77zz (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick responses. - Adaptivity77 (talk)Adaptivity77 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree also. Some of the historical artwork is pretty dreadful—and regularly inaccurate in terms of posture or features. MeegsC (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprising that drawing are sometimes inaccurate - they were frequently made from skins. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that a bunch of the articles for the Pyrrhura parakeets have this issue. But sometimes it's a choice between a poor quality painting and a poor quality photo in terms of what's available. For example File:Pyrrhura calliptera.JPG vs File:Flame-winged Parakeet (Pyrrhura calliptera) (8079736887).jpg. --Iloveparrots (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Look at this one too. Beak the wrong colour, eyes the wrong colour, other colours off. I know this because it's an ubiquitous pet parrot and there's loads of photos of the species. I wonder how many more aren't noticed. --Iloveparrots (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we add a sentence about this in the "Adding images" section of the project page? FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can't hurt! MeegsC (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To sum of the above, how about "Photos of live birds are preferred in an article's taxobox, but artwork and photos of stuffed specimens can be used if the first are unavailable or of inadequate quality"? I added the part about stuffed specimens because I've come across such cases as well... FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That sums it up nicely FunkMonk. Though I might put "or photos" rather than "and photos". MeegsC (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it (with your tweak), and then anyone can of course tweak it further. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I just noticed arelevant example, the current GAR Great spotted kiwi. There, an old illustration is used in the taxobox, because we only have inadequate photos of live individuals. But it could be argued that the photo of a stuffed specimen further down in the article would be more appropriate for thee taxobox than the drawing? FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Seabird

I have nominated Seabird for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like I'm going to have to head into town sometime and see if Victoria University of Wellington still has the textbook I used to do this article. Fingers crossed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird, I've got a pretty extensive library (including all of HBW, BWP, Cornell's "Birds of North America" (the pre-online version), many of the Helm guides, field guides from most countries, etc. etc.), plus access to JSTOR. Let me know if I can help. MeegsC (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The most important book is Schreiber, Elizabeth A. and Burger, Joanne (2001) Biology of Marine Birds. which was the main text I used for generic statements about seabirds as a whole. I know my local uni used to have one so I need to visit on a weekend and see if I can find it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird, if you can't find it there, there's a copy online here. MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Well damn thats gonna make it a hell of a lot easier! Thank you so much! Once I finish this one I should look at the other older FAs too to get in ahead of potential FARs. Sneaky way of getting me back! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird LOL. Whatever it takes!! ;) Welcome back! MeegsC (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

IUCN as range source

Because my primary interest is birds, I am posting this here, but have also posted a short notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals because the issue probably applies at a minimum to other animals.

I think most editors would agree that IUCN is a reliable source for the population status of a species (e.g. vulnerable or endangered). However, I have found them less reliable for ranges. (Range information is provided to IUCN by BirdLife International.) Three examples are:

• The IUCN range map for nanday parakeet shows populations in the Finger Lakes region of New York and in east-central Vermont. Neither state's rare bird committee include the species on their lists and both confirmed to me in personal communication that the species is not established in their states.
• The IUCN entries for gray seedeater and wing-barred seedeater state that they are resident in Trinidad and Tobago. The two accounts cited are dated 2016. Several other species' accounts dated 2016 and 2018 also state residency in that country. The Trinidad and Tobago Rare Bird Committee has determined that they have been extirpated; the South American Classification Committee of the AOS has listed them thus dated September 2020.
• The IUCN range map for cedar waxwing is accurate, but the text description of the range is grossy inaccurate. (For instance, the species is listed as a "passage" bird in Canada when it actually nests throughout the southern half of the country, and is listed as resident throughout the Caribbean when it is at best a non-breeding visitor there and in many places a vagrant.) In December 2020 I queried BLI about the error. They stated they were aware of it but that it would not be corrrected until the next major updates that are scheduled for late 2021.

The first two examples point to the problem I have witnessed of replacing more recent and/or more local-knowledge information with IUCN range data, when I believe the recent/local should take precedence. In my opinion, IUCN (or anyone else's) outdated information should not even be cited as a counterpoint to the recent information. The third example points to the folly of blindly accepting data from IUCN, or anywhere else for that matter, that conflicts with an article's primary source. It this particular case, familiarity with the species should be enough to ignore the erroneous data, but cross-checking with other sources would also determine which data are correct.

Comments, please. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Not sure there is anything particular to be done here, but I would agree that in cases where there is a conflict between information on IUCN and other sources, the other sources are usually going to be correct. Somatochlora (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree. To be honest, I think all sources of ranges need to be compared carefully, not just IUCN. For example, there's been some conflict lately on the Puerto Rico list, with ashy-faced owl being one of the species in question. I queried Denis Lepage about this species, as I know of no records of the owl (which is endemic to Haiti and the Dominican Republic) for the island. Turns out there are records of an extinct bird which might have been a subspecies. So it should — at best — be listed as extinct. And probably shouldn't be listed at all until its provenance is sorted. He's said he'll update his list "at some point". MeegsC (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to understand what goes on with the 4 major lists of birds to appreciate your difficulties here. I do not write much on birds and came from the link to this on the project animals site. However, I am one of the authors of recent papers on Global Species lists and can give some info that may help. For those of you interested in birds you are of course aware of the competing global lists, Birdlife Int and IOC being two of them. Birdlife International has taken it upon themselves to be the sole provider of information to the IUCN, The congruence between the species lists is only about 60% and Birdlife Int. have more species of birds than the other lists and are criticized for taxonomic inflation. So in effect any information you get from IUCN is based on Birdlife Int only, so if you are using IOC then you will get a lot of disparity, such as reduced ranges, because Birdlife over-splits. In the IUBS Working Group for Global Species Lists we actually use the 4 birdlists as an example of why we need governance of species lists. To get round this you need to compare the Birdlife List and the IOC and determine what the two lists consider a species, then figure out your ranges from that. Personal opinion, Birdlife Int and hence the IUCN birds lists are ridiculously over-split. Such is life at the moment. I can provide lots of refs on all this for those interested. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Faendalimas, most of us know that all too well! We've been dealing with a rogue editor whose edits are very reliant on IUCN range maps, and are trying to figure out how to approach him/her to educate him/her of the same! MeegsC (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the above is overstating the species splitting by Birdlife. They recognise about 200 more species than the IOC, with totals around 11,000. That's a difference of 2%. About 90% of the Birdlife species are recognised by all three of the other lists, which seems pretty good congruence to me. Can any other animal group show such congruence between four major lists? I suspect most of the difference is with the speed they recognise new species, rather than a fundamental difference in species definition. Birdlife acts on the opinions of its own experts, while the IOC usually wait for local organisations to act; the latest updates mentions several species proposals where they are waiting for NACC or SACC proposals before making a decision. H&M4 recognise the fewest species (about 9% less than Birdlife), but this list was published in 2013-14. The numbers recognised by the Clements, the IOC or Birdlife lists at that time were probably not so different. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the IUCN-sourced range entries from List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago; see its Talk page for details and rationale. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ditto List of birds of New York (state). Craigthebirder (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Montserrat oriole

I've just restored an old version (9 Feb 2018) of the Montserrat oriole article. A large amount of text had been copied verbatim from the Cornell BOW website. The edit summaries included the text "in the process of editing the page for a conservation biology class for loyola university chicago". - Aa77zz (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the correct taxonomic sequence for Amazon parrots?

Is the one here the currently accepted version?

https://www.worldbirdnames.org/bow/parrots/

Something that came up in discussion here. Currently the Amazon parrot article has the species list alphabetized by Latin name. Previously, it was in a different order, but I don't know what that was based on. It was different to the current order on the IOC page anyway. --Iloveparrots (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, here are the sequences for IOC 11.2 and Birds of the World. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

IOC sequence

BOW sequence

Amazona Lesson, R, 1830 [33 species] Amazona festiva (Festive Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1758) [SA : Venezuela and w Amazonia] [2 species] Amazona vinacea (Vinaceous-breasted Amazon) (Kuhl, 1820) [SA : e Paraguay to se Brazil] [1 species] Amazona tucumana (Tucuman Amazon) (Cabanis, 1885) [SA : s Bolivia and nw Argentina] [1 species] Amazona pretrei (Red-spectacled Amazon) (Temminck, 1830) [SA : s Brazil] [1 species] Amazona agilis (Black-billed Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1758) [NA : Jamaica] [1 species] Amazona albifrons (White-fronted Amazon) (Sparrman, 1788) [MA : nw Mexico to Costa Rica] [1 species] Amazona collaria (Yellow-billed Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1758) [NA : Jamaica] [1 species] Amazona leucocephala (Cuban Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1758) [NA : Cuba, Bahamas and Cayman Is.] [1 species] Amazona ventralis (Hispaniolan Amazon) (Müller, PLS, 1776) [NA : Hispaniola] [1 species] Amazona vittata (Puerto Rican Amazon) (Boddaert, 1783) [NA : Puerto Rico] [1 species] Amazona finschi (Lilac-crowned Amazon) (Sclater, PL, 1864) [MA : w Mexico] [1 species] Amazona autumnalis (Red-lored Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1758) [MA, SA : e Mexico to w Ecuador] [1 species] Amazona diadema (Diademed Amazon) (Spix, 1824) [SA : nw Brazil] [1 species] Amazona viridigenalis (Red-crowned Amazon) (Cassin, 1853) [MA : ne Mexico] [1 species] Amazona xantholora (Yucatan Amazon) (Gray, GR, 1859) [MA : Yucatán Pen.] [1 species] Amazona dufresniana (Blue-cheeked Amazon) (Shaw, 1812) [SA : e Venezuela and the Guianas] [1 species] Amazona rhodocorytha (Red-browed Amazon) (Salvadori, 1890) [SA : e, se Brazil] [1 species] Amazona arausiaca (Red-necked Amazon) (Müller, PLS, 1776) [NA : Dominica] [1 species] Amazona versicolor (St. Lucia Amazon) (Müller, PLS, 1776) [NA : St. Lucia] [1 species] Amazona oratrix (Yellow-headed Amazon) Ridgway, 1887 [MA : s Mexico and Belize] [1 species] Amazona tresmariae (Tres Marias Amazon) Nelson, 1900 [MA : Tres Marias Is., Mexico] [1 species] Amazona auropalliata (Yellow-naped Amazon) (Lesson, R, 1842) [MA : s Mexico to Costa Rica] [1 species] Amazona ochrocephala (Yellow-crowned Amazon) (Gmelin, JF, 1788) [MA, SA : w Panama to e Peru and n Bolivia] [1 species] Amazona barbadensis (Yellow-shouldered Amazon) (Gmelin, JF, 1788) [SA : Venezuela] [1 species] Amazona aestiva (Turquoise-fronted Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1758) [SA : c] [1 species] Amazona mercenarius (Scaly-naped Amazon) (Tschudi, 1844) [SA : Venezuela to Bolivia] [1 species] Amazona guatemalae (Northern Mealy Amazon) (Sclater, PL, 1860) [MA : se Mexico to w Panama] [1 species] Amazona farinosa (Southern Mealy Amazon) (Boddaert, 1783) [MA, SA : e Panama and Colombia to ne Bolivia, e Brazil and the Guianas] [1 species] Amazona kawalli (Kawall's Amazon) Grantsau & Camargo, 1989 [SA : Amazonian Brazil] [1 species] Amazona imperialis (Imperial Amazon) Richmond, 1899 [NA : Dominica] [1 species] Amazona brasiliensis (Red-tailed Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1758) [SA : se Brazil] [1 species] Amazona amazonica (Orange-winged Amazon) (Linnaeus, 1766) [SA : Colombia, Venezuela and the Guianas to Bolivia and sc Brazil; se Brazil] [1 species] Amazona guildingii (St. Vincent Amazon) (Vigors, 1837) [NA : St. Vincent] [0 species]

Amazona [32 children] Amazona festiva (Festive Parrot) [2 children]Amazona festiva Amazona vinacea (Vinaceous-breasted Parrot)Amazona vinacea Amazona tucumana (Tucuman Parrot)Amazona tucumana Amazona pretrei (Red-spectacled Parrot)Amazona pretrei Amazona viridigenalis (Red-crowned Parrot)Amazona viridigenalis Amazona finschi (Lilac-crowned Parrot)Amazona finschi Amazona autumnalis (Red-lored Parrot) [3 children]Amazona autumnalis Amazona dufresniana (Blue-cheeked Parrot)Amazona dufresniana Amazona rhodocorytha (Red-browed Parrot)Amazona rhodocorytha Amazona arausiaca (Red-necked Parrot)Amazona arausiaca Amazona martinicana (Martinique Parrot)Amazona martinicana Amazona versicolor (St. Lucia Parrot)Amazona versicolor Amazona auropalliata (Yellow-naped Parrot) [3 children]Amazona auropalliata Amazona oratrix (Yellow-headed Parrot) [2 children]Amazona oratrix Amazona ochrocephala (Yellow-crowned Parrot) [4 children]Amazona ochrocephala Amazona barbadensis (Yellow-shouldered Parrot)Amazona barbadensis Amazona aestiva (Turquoise-fronted Parrot) [2 children]Amazona aestiva Amazona agilis (Black-billed Parrot)Amazona agilis Amazona albifrons (White-fronted Parrot) [3 children]Amazona albifrons Amazona xantholora (Yellow-lored Parrot)Amazona xantholora Amazona collaria (Yellow-billed Parrot)Amazona collaria Amazona leucocephala (Cuban Parrot) [3 children]Amazona leucocephala Amazona ventralis (Hispaniolan Parrot)Amazona ventralis Amazona vittata (Puerto Rican Parrot) [2 children]Amazona vittata Amazona farinosa (Mealy Parrot) [2 children]Amazona farinosa Amazona kawalli (Kawall's Parrot)Amazona kawalli Amazona imperialis (Imperial Parrot)Amazona imperialis Amazona violacea (Guadeloupe Parrot)Amazona violacea Amazona brasiliensis (Red-tailed Parrot)Amazona brasiliensis Amazona guildingii (St. Vincent Parrot)Amazona guildingii Amazona amazonica (Orange-winged Parrot) [2 children]Amazona amazonica Amazona mercenarius (Scaly-naped Parrot) [2 children]Amazona mercenarius

Note: the IOC lists says number of species when it should say subspecies. I can't be bother to edit that now. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I just follow the IOC. From time to time the IOC "resequence" the species in a family based on a published phylogeny (and the NW - SE convention). - Aa77zz (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So, we should use the IOC version? For the record, this is what it used to look like before User:Ddum5347 alpabetized them. That ordering was unsourced. --Iloveparrots (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I say use BOW. Less controversial, less changes made. More recent too. Thoughts? User:Craigthebirder Ddum5347 (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

More recent? The IOC 11.1 is this January. The advantage of the IOC is that it is open source. Everyone can see the lists and use the information. Birds of the World should be following the Clements list, but I'm not sure how exactly. The last update was the end of 2019, iirc. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at List of amazon parrots too. Another strange ordering that doesn't even correspond to the cited source? I'm not sure what's been going on here. --Iloveparrots (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There are two parts to the answer here. Firstly, any list in an article should follow the source cited. There is no excuse not to. It's unfortunate that people update lists and cladograms without updating the reference. The second consideration is choice of main source for consistency between articles. This is more tricky. For birds there are several good recent sources, which contrasts with mammals. I thought the bird project consensus was to follow the IOC, especially for choice of article titles and taxobox taxonomy. But a species list could choose a different source as long as the list follows a citation to a reliable source. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Waiting for @Craigthebirder: to share his opinions on this. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've created or revised a lot of "List of xxx species" (for example list of ovenbird species) and have used IOC for them. I think that's most appropriate for a non-geographic list given that IOC is the standard for individual species/family/order etc. articles. But as long as a major taxonomy is used and properly cited, I'm not wedded to it. Note that Clements calls these birds parrot, not amazon, so it wouldn't be right for this list. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Template:Amazon parrots uses that strange unsourced taxonomic order with the Cuban Amazon first too. That will also need correcting. I wonder where that came from? --Iloveparrots (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I decided to be bold and update Template:Amazon parrots per the IOC list. Please feel free to revert me if I messed it up. I also added blue-winged amazon as 'disputed'. --Iloveparrots (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

So, should the Lilacine amazon be demoted to a subspecies in our article again, if we're using the IOC taxonomy? --Iloveparrots (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Only del Hoyo et al 2014 HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World recognises the Lilacine amazon as a separate species, the SACC does not - nor does Clements 2019. I suggest we follow the IOC (and SACC and Clements) and treat the Lilacine amazon as a subspecies. Whether we retain a page for the subspecies is more tricky. I would add a paragraph to the wiki page Red-lored amazon - where the subspecies is already listed and replace Lilacine amazon with a redirect. The IOC Comparison with other lists is useful (but I've also checked the SACC page and the Clements 2019 spreadsheet.) - Aa77zz (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The red-lored amazon article should cite: Donegan, T.; Verhelst, J.C.; Ellery, T.; Cortés-Herrera, O.; Salaman, P. (2016). "Revision of the status of bird species occurring or reported in Colombia 2016 and assessment of BirdLife International's new parrot taxonomy". Conservación Colombiana. 24: 12–36. (who support the split). - Aa77zz (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep the page. It's well-sourced, appears to be factually accurate and I don't think it's doing any harm by existing. The Lilacine has an entry on the IUCN Red List (critically endangered), so it may only be a matter of time before the other authorities consider it to be a separate species anyway. Noted in the article is that it appears to be of the temperament (plenty of Amazon species are incredibly ornry birds, even when tame) that makes it an agreeable pet parrot, which may be one of the reasons why it's critically endangered in the wild. I think it's useful to have that explained somewhere. --Iloveparrots (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've done Amazon_parrot#List_of_species now, as we discussed here. I don't really feel confident tackling the table markup at List of amazon parrots though. I'm sure I'll completely break it. --Iloveparrots (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Non-larid gulls - is this still needed?

Just something I found while reading - Category:Non-larid gulls.

I assume this was created before Larus was split years ago to demarcate the non-Larus species. Now like half of the gulls are 'non-larid', by that definition.

Is this still a useful category? Or should it be renamed to 'non-Larus'? Because they're all Laridae anyway? --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

yeah, I think this should be "Non-Larus gulls"? Not sure how to rename? --Iloveparrots (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I figured it out and proposed it be renamed. Thread here - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_15#Category:Non-larid_gulls. Input would be appreciated. --Iloveparrots (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback appreciated

I've got a couple of articles up for featured status. Comments, questions or suggestions for improvement for List of endemic birds of Borneo and/or Preening would be much appreciated! MeegsC (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What's this parrot?

Take a look at File:Verde no Verde.jpg.

I was looking on Commons for a better image to illustrate Scaly-headed parrot than the current flash-burned one (spoiler - there isn't one, really). But I did see the above image, categorized as a scaly-headed parrot. Those are clearly not scaly-headed parrots. Anyone know what they are? They look like Psittacara conures to me, but I'm not up on them enough to identify the species. Any thoughts, so I can categorize this correctly? --Iloveparrots (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The parrots look like white-eyed parakeets - which are widely distributed in South America. See the BOW page. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah - "is an overall green bird with red on the shoulders and some random flecks of red on the head and neck". That sounds/looks about right, doesn't it? Anyone else agree? --Iloveparrots (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• As for the first image, maybe it could be improved with a bit of colour correction? FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've tweaked the colours of File:Pionus maximiliani -pet-8a.JPG - but I'm not very skilled with Photoshop - and the original is low quality and low res. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys. I changed the images around since I made this post. At the time I wrote it, it was File:Pionus_maximiliani_-pet-4a.jpg that was the lead image. That was the one I was talking about. --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

An improvement anyhow! FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. This species is apparently highly iridescent, so I guess it's fairly hard to get a good photograph that represents the colours accurately. --Iloveparrots (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding another one I found - File:Pionus maximiliani.jpg. These are white-eyed parekeets/conures too, aren't they? Why do people think these species look anything alike? --Iloveparrots (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What species is this bird?

Anyone know? Just saw on Softbill when editing. I'll export it to Commons when I know what it is... --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a Turaco, but not sure which... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The dark crest, bill colour and eye patch look like Livingstone's turaco Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks more like white-cheeked turaco to me - see the cheek patch and color of the crest. Coincidentally, the species is the cover photo of the African Bird Club Bulletin that just came out. Craigthebirder (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Thank you. Article also mentions that it's sometimes kept as a pet (today I learned something), which fits with the subject matter. --Iloveparrots (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, looks like it has been on Commons with correct identity since 2006:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That was me. I just exported it to Commons now. --Iloveparrots (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Parrots copying human mannerisms (not speech)

Does anyone know if this has been studied at all? I've seen lots of videos over the years that would seem to suggest that parrots also copy human behavior (such as petting a dog with a foot, eating with a spoon, using a nail file, kissing another parrot while making human kissy noises and telling the other bird in English how cute it is, etc.). Thought it might be an interesting addition somewhere, if there are actually reliable sources about it. --Iloveparrots (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition, speaking in general. Is it ever acceptable to cite Youtube (or whatever) videos to demonstrate that a species has been observed performing a particular behavior, without any editorializing about intent? Something like "pet parrots have been observed using their feet to pet the fur of household rabbits", or whatever? --Iloveparrots (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I'm not sure if parrots copying human mannerisms has ever been studied. You might check Google Scholar or JSTOR to see if there are any papers on the subject. As to using YouTube, I think it's okay to link (in an external links section) to behaviour mentioned in an article, but I wouldn't use it as a source. MeegsC (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow up the references in articles like Alex (parrot), keeping a lookout for key terms (cognition, mimicry, etc) that will assist in finding more sources. ~ cygnis insignis 13:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I had a look around and I couldn't find anything obvious. It may not have even been studied, but it was videos like this I was referring to in my OP. Look at the little guy - he's speaking in English to the baby Quaker parrot while mimicking the act of kissing him/her. --Iloveparrots (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Iloveparrots, I understand. I still would not use YouTube as a source. MeegsC (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Asking for back-up

Does anyone have the information of Chestnut-capped piha (the only problem on GA that hasn't been solved) why the species may be superspecies or unconfirmed? 180.194.141.59 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Red-winged blackbird

This article may have many views on its page, but the whole article is confusing. Lots of people on talk page were complaining.

I'm not sure 2-3 people is "lots", but yes, the article needs some work. We'll add it to the long list of things to work on. MeegsC (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ref

Is anybody here a member of the BOU? I'm trying to read an article in the July 2020 issue of The Ibis, but it's behind a paywall. MeegsC (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC: not a BOU member, but I do have full bundle access through my department. If you let me know what you are after I can mail it to you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Elmidae. It's "Vicariant events in the montane hummingbird genera Augastes and Schistes in South America" in volume 162 issue 3. MeegsC (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC: okay, got it. I you want to drop me an email, I'll attach it back to you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elmidae. Actually, Shyamal just sent me a copy, so I'm set! Thanks so much for the offer. MeegsC (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Tawny owl

I've boldly reverted this featured article to the version of 14 January 2020. This reduced its size from 251kB to 30kB. I've started a discussion on the talk page. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Chickadee 24,190 806 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Are the clade of chickadees recognized as a distinct tribe or subgenus? If not, then this stub should be converted back to a redirect with the genus page as a target. A hat-note to link to the Chickadee dab page can then be added to the genus article. Loopy30 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the cladogram on the Poecile page, the chickadees do look to be a subclade. MeegsC (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It does seem a stable natural group (monophyletic, geographic). Before Parus was broken up, Poecile was a subgenus containing the seven chickadees and more or less the same other species. In Gill et al (2005) the seven chickadees were a subclade in Poecile and the relationships seem to have held up since then. Gill et al cite Thielcke (1968) and Harrup & Quinn (1968) for the traditional subgenera assignments, but I can't access either to see if they used further subdivisions (seems unlikely). But does a clade need to have a Linnean rank to justify an article if the group is both a natural one and has commonly used name that someone could be looking up? —  Jts1882 | talk  09:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

article Bekisar needs cites.

The article Bekisar (hybrid of Gallus varius and Gallus gallus bankiva) has no cites.

Article has been tagged since Nov 2010.

Anybody?

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:9443:1D79:7950:A0FB (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually it does have several references, of which numbers 2 & 3 (a blog-type thing and a 2019 BOC Bulletin paper) seem to contain a good deal of the material in the article. What it lacks is inline citations, which anyone who wants to sit down with these two sources for half an hour could insert. Why not have a go at it? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Would superspecies be a useful rank to include in taxoboxes?

Incoming links to superspecies are almost entirely from bird articles. Would it be useful to add support for superspecies as a rank in taxoboxes? Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The article states it's "only" an informal rank? FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Taxoboxes already support "species group" and "species complex", which aren't formal ranks. Ornithology seems to use "superspecies" more than any other taxonomic discipline, although I'm not sure how common "superspecies" is versus "species complex" in ornithology. I'm not personally eager to see informal ranks proliferating in taxoboxes, but since some are supported, I wanted to check whether superspecies should be as well. Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: if your comment above was meant to query whether it's an informal rank, then even though "superspecies" looks more like a formal rank than, say, "species group", it's not a rank that is recognized by the ICZN; Art. 45.1 accepts only species and subspecies. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps species group and species complex should be replaced with superspecies? At least it sounds more formal, and they seem to be interchangeable... FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: we must follow sources and use the terminology they use. "Species group" is used in grouping Drosophila species, for example, so is needed in that context. I'm as resistant to introducing yet more 'ranks', but we can't say which are interchangeable unless there are reliable sources to follow. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's fine to add then? Though I wonder if any of these terms even need to be listed, seems they're often disputed and arbitrary? FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

why isn't "conure" used in article titles?

I've just been reading about parrots. Seems like all the conures are named "parakeet" on here. I always thought parakeet was for old world species and conure denoted new world birds with that body shape.

We use the names specified by the International Ornithological Committee; they are found here. We've chosen this list to eliminate the (MANY) naming disputes that used to result in articles being repeatedly moved in the past. MeegsC (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, we follow one source for consistency in the titles. Some articles mention the alternative names, e.g. the burrowing parrot as the Patagonian conure. This should be done in other articles if it can be confirmed in reliable sources. There is a conure article. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. As a matter of interest, does anyone here have experience with pet conures? Was considering getting a green cheek or a sun. Have owned budgies before.

Request for move of Canastero

Please could someone with the necessary privileges move Canastero to the genus name Asthenes (now a redirect).

After updates to the genera the use of the common name here has become confusing. As well as "canasteros" the genus Asthenes includes 9 "thistletails". In addition Asthenes is not the only genus with "canesteros" as 4 have been moved to the genus Pseudasthenes. Many thanks - Aa77zz (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Strange edit to Psittacara

Anyone know what this user was trying to do here? Question marks added next to species names and taxonomic order changed around. Not sure if it needs reverting... --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The intent seems clear. The list is now alphabetical on the scientific name and species whose statuses are uncertain are marked with the question-mark. I have no problem with that per se, but would like to know the reasoning and sourcing. The original list is unsourced so it's not clear if it's a sequential listing. And what is/are the source(s) for questioning the statuses. I'd also like to know what is meant by hypothetical species. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked as a sock of User:Ddum5347, and so the edits should be considered of dubious nature.--Kevmin § 15:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, he has also been back with his usual edits to extinct bird categories. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

And looks like he's still going:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Next collaboration?

Soooo.....@LittleJerry, Aa77zz, Shyamal, BhagyaMani, and Jimfbleak:...anyone have any enthusiasm for another collaboration to go on the FA train? My enthusiasm and availability has been a bit too patchy for solo efforts the last few months but I felt really good getting some bird not from Australia or UK Featured. Happy to put some heavy lifting into another avian collaboration to keep the FAs ticking over. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I have other articles on my mind, none of which are birds. I would consider the Bateleur, African fish eagle or Harpy eagle. LittleJerry (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The popularity list might be a good guide, I agree that we could give a bit more priority to some of the more spectacular African species, but our sources tend to be written largely from a white birding tourist perspective and could well do with local lore and cultural information but tracing non-English sources for them can be hard. Shyamal (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I still have access to Cornell/HBW and I have monographs for some groups; I'd rather do a group, like owl, rather than a single species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm game! I have hardcopy versions of "Birds of North America" (which Cornell moved online), BWP and HBW, field guides from just about everywhere, and a JSTOR subscription, so should be able to help with whatever is chosen. How about the seriemas (South America)? Or the southeast Asian broadbills? Or maybe great blue turaco (tropical Africa)? On another note, it's nice to see we only have 4 stubs in the top 500 most viewed articles – and 3 of the 4 are basically "set indices". MeegsC (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, so thinking about broader things, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration we still have some nominees...also thinking Penguin, Auk, Grebe, Stork, Nightjar are other possibilities for broad articles, Harpy eagle as an interesting tropical choice as is any that MeegsC (talk · contribs) has highlighted. Shall we nominate and vote there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, may as well expand the great blue turaco fivefold for a DYK....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Shoebill 🙏. 180.194.130.165 (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that a group of editors is currently working on expanding Amazon parrot, FWIW. Maybe it would be a good idea to join in with this, seeing as though it's ongoing? --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Birds in New York City?

Looking for some advice. New York City is along the Atlantic Flyway and home to a very active birding community. There's a lot of information out there about birds here. But what is the standard for having a list along the lines of List of birds of New York City? It would, of course, be a subset of List of birds of New York (state). What are the assumptions about source coverage? Are there central authorities that only cover at the level of states in the US? Any advice welcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Most US states have a list published by a rare bird committee or similar body as cited in the "List of birds of New York (state)". New York City Audubon has a checklist of birds of the city at https://www.nycaudubon.org/events-birding/birding-resources/birding-in-nyc. A simple way of creating the article would be by opening the state list article with the edit tab, copying the raw contents to Notepad or a similar simple word processor, deleting the species not on the Audubon list, and revising the lede with the new counts and source. Craigthebirder (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy updates

The North American Classification Committee of the American Ornithological Society (NACC/AOS) has published the 2021 update to the Checklist of North American Birds. The "List of birds of ___" articles for the US and its states, Canada and its provinces, Central America, much of the Caribbean, and more than a dozen US National Parks use that taxonomy. Over the next couple of weeks I will be updating all of those lists to match the revised taxonomy. The IOC has also released Version 11.2 of its taxonomy and I will be updating various lists of species by family (e.g. List of Cisticolidae species) as well. And the newest Clements taxonomy should be published soon after a two year hiatus. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The IOC still is in draft form, but should be making the transition to 11.2 in final form very soon. I usually wait until it is in final form before i make changes, but dont mind others doing it sooner.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the downloadable spreadsheets are the final 11.2 versions, but the BOW pages haven't been updated yet.

Clements/eBird have been quiet on their plans, just the note that there won't be a 2020 update and they are well past the early 2021 schedule. I wonder if they've just decided usual August update or whether they've had trouble with their upgrades. The integration of HBW Alive could lead to substantial changes. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

so for me there is enough splitting done by the IOC for me to start making changes in Wikipedia. The only thing not done yet by the IOC is recognizing the changes in the family lists. All else has been completed....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Haliaeetus

Could someone who knows where the birds are buried sort out whether the genus Haliaeetus is currently considered to be within a subfamily Haliaeetinae (as implemented in the templates, but not in the text of that article), or in Buteoninae (as implied by the text of Accipitridae#Taxonomy, but not the text of Buteoninae itself)? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The general problem we have is that the ioc list doesn't includes subfamilies. Many sources include subfamilies but they do not agree. Also many of the older sources will not reflect the more recent genetic results.

For a family such as Accipitridae with 256 species and 68 genera, it is obviously helpful to organise the large number of genera into subfamilies. H&M4 includes some subfamilies - but Volume 1 Non-passerines was published in 2013. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Elaninae Gypaetinae Gypaetini sensu H&M4 [=Gypaetinae] Pernini sensu H&M4 [=Perninae] sensu H&M4 Accipitrinae Circaetini sensu H&M4 [=Circaetinae] Gypini sensu H&M4 [=Aegypiinae] Accipitrini Aquilinae Aquilinae sensu stricto Harpinae sensu Mindell Accipitrinae sensu stricto Harpaginae ["transitory accipitrine" in Mindell] Buteoninae Haliaeetinae (includes Milvines) Buteoninae sensu stricto sensu Mindell sensu H&M4

Seems the taxonomy has undergone considerable splitting and relumping. My notes show that Peters (1931) had 8 subfamilies and included all the eagles in Buteoninae. Amadon & Bull (1988) split the eagles into boot eagles (Aquilinae), harpy eagles (Harpinae), sea eagles (Haliaeetinae) and sub-buteonines (rump Buteoninae). Lerner & Mindell (2005) pretty much kept this division. Nagy & Tökölyi (2014) kept the four eagle subfamilies and added the Milvine kites to Haliaeetinae. Mindell et al (2018) lumped the Haliaeetinae into the Buteoninae although Haliaeetinae taxa (sea eagles and milvine kites) were monophyletic and sister to the remaining buteonines (they similarly lumped the harpy eagles with the boot eagles). H&M4 includes all the eagles in a large tribe Accipitrini with the hawks, which is part of a subfamily with Old World vultures and snake eagles.

Seems that recent phylogenetic analyses are relatively consistent and compatible with either four subfamilies or two subfamilies for eagles or a single larger one including hawks or hawks, vultures and snake eagles (as in H&M). All of which leads us with the problem of what taxonomy to follow using reliable sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

How about the HBW/BirdLife checklist (now vs5 (December 2020)) - which include subfamilies and tribes? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That's one possibility, although their subfamily/tribe classification isn't very current. For Accipitridae they use the same taxonomy as H&M4 with a mega-Accipitrini (so use neither Buteoninae nor Haliaeetinae), although the sequence in the checklist seems consistent with recent phylogeny (consistent with subtribes Harpina, Aquilina, Accipitrina, Haliaeetina, and Buteonina). For other groups they seem to use an older classification than H&M. I'd guess they use the HBW classification and that will depend on when the relevant volumes were published. For Birdlife International the detailed taxonomy isn't too important for their mission of conserving species. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Kleptorichy

Hello, I created a brief draft for Kleptorichy, the recently defined word for the stealing of mammal hair by birds. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Crex

Merge proposal discussion under Crex talk page due to IOC taxonomy change....Pvmoutside (talk) 8:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, the genus Mascarenotus was recently synonymised with Otus (bird). Should it be merged? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Genus article after reclassification

Recently, Phedina was turned into a redirect as it became a monotypic genus after one species was reclassified. This seems a shame to me, as it was a decent quality article. In situations like these, has there been any previous discussion on instead moving the article to some higher taxonomic rank, or perhaps even setting it up as an unranked clade article? It seems useful to have an article discussing a group of species somewhere between the very focused individual species article and the broad Family article (Swallow, which covers 90ish species). It would also provide a location where the various changes to taxonomic classification could be discussed. (Pinging Pvmoutside who updated the pages regarding the reclassification.) CMD (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There have been genus and other articles that have been kept after their taxonomic status has become invalidated, especially if there was enough written. I decided to make Phedina a redirect because the taxonomic status of the genus has become now associated with a monotypic species, the Mascarene Martin, which is a featured article and Phedina is not. Also everything is listed in the Martin article. Much of Phedina would need to be rewritten and confusing if brought back now that it is associated with the monotypic species... Whatever everyone would like....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Psittacus

Can anyone help me find a source saying that at one time, years ago most/all parrots were placed in the genus Psittacus? I'm pretty sure that's true, but I can't find proof online. Thanks. --Iloveparrots (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this description of early classifications help? It's not exactly new, but does have the required claim. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

When Linnaeus introduced the genus Psittacus in 1758 he included in it all 37 species of parrot known to him. see here. In his classification Linnaeus didn't have families - only orders and genera. The article Aves in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae specifies that 6 of Linnaeus's species are now considered nomen dubium. Only two species are now placed in Psittacus. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there were more than that included at various points. If you do a search for "psittacus" on here, loads of articles mention that various parrot/cockatoo species were previously known as Psittacus <something>. --Iloveparrots (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

New Clements/Ebird has been published

The new Clements/ebird has now been published. At present, it is only available at ebird, but should be published on the Clements site very soon. This will affect most of the country checklists. User craigthebirder has taken care of the North and South American lists because he uses a different source for those lists. Craig and I will slowly begin updating the remaining lists. Feel free if you want to have some fun....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Family containing a single genus

When a family contains a single genus should the combined article be at the genus name or at the family name? Thanks

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Genus – see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - Aa77zz (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Re the above question - can somebody with the necessary privileges move Psophiidae to Psophia. Many thanks - Aa77zz (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done and adjusted lede. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What makes a shelduck/sheldgoose?

I'm currently expanding the article about the Mauritius shelduck, which has also been called the Mauritius sheldgoose. So I naturally wanted to know what the difference is between the two terms, and the Wikipedia articles seem to be pretty neatly delineated: a shelduck is apparently mainly a member of the genus Tadorna and a sheldgoose is supposedly a member of the genus Chloephaga. But wait, the Mauritius shelduck was never classified in either genus, and Britannica instead says "Sheldgoose, any of the larger members of the duck tribe Tadornini, family Anatidae (order Anseriformes). The smaller members of the tribe are called shelducks"[4], which seems a lot more arbitrary than Wikipedia's definitions. So are our definitions too neat? Should we instead have articles for Tadorna and Chloephaga under their scientific names, and keep shelduck/sheldgoose as a single article about an informal, unnatural group, like parakeet? FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not an answer to the question of folk taxonomy, but I looked up to find what "sheld" means - and found that there are suggestions to being "particolored" (like pied) - https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofengl00swan/page/213/mode/1up Shyamal (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this is one of the common name divisions that hasn't survived the molecular phylogeny induced changes too well. According to the IOC 11.2, shelducks belong to genera Tadorna and Radjah, while sheldgeese belong to Alopochen. Birds of the World drop sheldgeese and use shelduck for all three genera. Neither currently use either for Chloephaga. Members of Alopochen can be called sheldgeese (IOC) or shelducks (BOW) or neither (the Egyptian Goose, Alopochen aegyptiaca). There doesn't seem to be a clear delineation related to taxonomy, with size being the historical distinction. Since the common name is ambiguous or confusing, I support articles on the genera and a simple disambiguation style article on the shelducks and sheldgeese. Or perhaps it would be better to modify the Tadorninae article to handle the disambiguation. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Either of your suggestions sound good to me, though I'm no expert. The current situation just seems a bit too confusing, and if it doesn't even reflect the literature properly, there is little reason to maintain it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been looking at the history of anseriform taxonomy and have made some progress in understanding the major groups of family Anatidae (it's surprisingly uncertain and in flux for such a major group of birds). It badly needs revision following molecular studies. The major checklists follow fairly outdated sequences.

• Bizarrely I've yet to find a definition of what shelducks or sheldgeese are, apart from the fact that they are intermediate in form between ducks and geese.
• There is also little delineation between shelducks and sheldgeese, apart from the latter being generally larger.
• In the classification of Delacour & Mayr (1945) the "sheldrakes" are placed in the tribe Tadornini. This tribe includes the genera Tadorna (sheldrakes), Chloephaga (various south American geese), Alopochen (Egyptian goose), "Cascara" and Neochen (Orinico goose), as well as Cyanochen (blue-winged goose), Lophenetta (South American crested duck), Tachyeres (South American steamer ducks), and Cereopsis (Cape Barren goose). They don't use the terms shelduck or sheldgoose, but it seems the ducks and geese related to the Tadorna sheldrakes became known as sheducks and sheldgeese.
• Subsequent authors (e.g. Johnsgard and Livezey) vary the generic composition of the tribe but consider it the tribe of shelducks and sheldgeese
• There is little consistency between what is called a shelduck or shelduck in subsequent studies or in current IOC and Clements listings. Johnsgard (1978/2010) even refers to the Egyptian goose as and African endemic shelduck.

My suggestion for Wikipedia changes is as follows:

• Move shelduck to Tadorna . The article is essentially about the genus and the birds therein, so won't need much major revision.
• Move sheldgoose to Chloephaga. Similarly, the article is about the "geese" in Chloephaga.
• Make redirects to article Tadorninae for shelduck and sheldgoose . The lede of this article can be modified to refer to it as the subfamily (or tribe) containing shelducks and sheldgeese and this will deal with the disambiguation. It should also probably be moved to Tadornini following Cracraft (2013) in H&M4 and updated to its more restricted circumscription based on molecular studies, but that is another matter.

If there is agreement with this proposal, I can start making the changes. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I support the proposal. This isn't the only example where the use of English names for genera leads to difficulties - it can occur when species have been moved around based on molecular data. I also find the use the singular form (per MOS) slightly confusing - ie great albatross is a genus not a species. And how many people search for true thrush rather than Turdus. -Aa77zz (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I support this proposal too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Since there appears to be broad support here for the two page moves (Tadorna and Chloephaga), I went ahead and moved them over the redirects. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I made a template box for the conures - is this useful to anyone?

"I'll just leave this here", as they say. :)

• Seems this was never signed, and can't be archived without a timestamp, so here it is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That was me, sorry. Would that be a useful thing to add to those articles? I know Wikipedia doesn't like to use "conure", but it's commonly used as an "most of the Arini that aren't macaws" thing... --Iloveparrots (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't say, maybe some of the more neontologically minded editors here will chime in! FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chestnut-capped piha

Nominator isn't active anymore, if anyone can help for it on its basic GA process. 114.134.189.25 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Chetatata and copyvios

I'm sorry to kick up a ruckus about an obvious good faith contributor, but I'm rather alarmed at what I'm seeing here. Chetatata has been expanding Philippine bird stubs over the past month, usually employing three main sources: Birds of the Philippines, EBird, and the respective IUCN page. The trouble is with the usage of the IUCN source. In every example that I have checked so far, there are direct copy & paste copyvios - ranging from individual sentences (as at Negros scops owl) to full or multiple paragraphs (as in Hombron's kingfisher) (IUCN page). Usually it's the "Conservation Actions Proposed" section from the page, complete with ungrammatical bullet phrasing, plus bits and bobs from the rest of the page. All material from the IUCN pages is copyrighted, and we straight up cannot do that. (Note that the copyvio detector is pretty bad at picking these up, I assume due to its text spot check/subsampling mechanics.)

I'm noting this here because I have a strong suspicion that the entire batch of contributions will have to be revdeleted to remedy this, and I'd rather not instigate that entirely on my own penny. @Diannaa: could you verify?

(As a distant second, they also directly quote (in quotation marks) the entire EBird description, which I guess is okay as far as re-use and attribution goes, but I think it's bad practice to not rephrase this for WP use. More YMMV, maybe others could comment on that.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: @Elmidae: My bad, I thought if it could pass thru the copyvio detector then it would've been okay. Can I just remove the parts where I source IUCN? Like you said it's just in the conservation actions proposed parts? - Chetatata (talk

@Chetatata:, we can't host any amount of copyright material on Wikipedia. Everything you add needs to be written in your own words. (The idea is to completely comply with our copyright policy, not to fool the bot into letting some things through.) Please go back and remove everything you copied from copyright websites. — Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: so, we good without revdel? I find it hard to tell when/if that's necessary... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There's 124 articles to be checked/cleaned. That's more than I am prepared to take on right now. Please apply for a case to be opened at WP:CCI. — Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Should I remove it now or will i have to wait for the CCI to be resolved? -Chetatata(talk

@Chetatata: frankly I'm a little confused as well. My take is this: copyrighted material on WP can get us into trouble; that applies to both text visible in articles, and text hidden but accessible in the edit history. The former can be remedied by editing, the latter only by revision deletion (which purges everything from the related edit onwards, and thus overwrites any intervening efforts). You can help with the former, the latter has to be done by an admin. And there's a humonguous backlog for checking and revdeleting copyvios - years, in fact -, and very few people who do it (incl. Diannaa). So while revdeleting, IF someone gets around to it, will make any previous editing pointless, it's an open question as to when that will be. In the meantime, the visible material should still be dealt with, even if it turns out to be lost labour in the longer run, because it very obviously exposes us to liability. - So I'd ask you to go ahead and fix up those sections while I start the CCI request. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the clarification. I'll just make sure to back up my new edits too. I still plan on editing all the other Philippine endemics (we have 243/ I've edited ~120 so far) will my future edits be affected by that revdelete? -Chetatata(talk

No, those should be fine. Let's say the copyrighted material is added in edit n, and is followed by three other edits while it is present (n+3). Then you delete it from the text (n+4) and add further edits (n+5 following). Revision deletion would remove everything from n to n+4 inclusive but leave n+5 following intact. That is, the edit in which you remove the text is the last to be cut out when revdel happens. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivory-billed woodpecker declared extinct by USFWS

... but the IUCN has not - and predictably everyone and their grandmother is bombing into the article with hamfisted updates and and rewrites. We need to establish a clear decision as to which source to follow. Please hop over onto the talk page and comment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Calyptorhynchinae should be an article now

It's currently a redirect. Recent taxonomic changes mean that it should now contain Calyptorhynchus and Zanda (bird), I think. Is that correct (checking before I do it)? --Iloveparrots (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iloveparrots: if you have reliable sources, go ahead and be bold.--awkwafaba (📥) 12:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly a valid topic. The subfamily is supported by Joseph et al (2012; just for Calyptorhynchus) and H&M4 (see Cacatuidae; includes Zanda). The only question is whether there is sufficient information to make a useful article, rather than just covering it in the family article. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Since two of the species article are FAs, they should perhaps also reflect this in their texts? Maybe they do already, haven't looked closely. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost synonymous with Black cockatoo....however the palm cockatoo more closely rtelated to white cockatoos....I'm not sure that folks traditionally saw it as one anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Harpagornis "no longer valid"

Can someone take a look at these edits? I have no knowledge of this subject, but given the edit history of the user who made them, I can't tell if they are correct or simply more crap. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the genus change is justified based on the phylogenetic analysis by Bunce et al (2005) and latter coverage in New Zealand Geographic. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Move discussion at Painted Whitestart

Please see move request here which has yet to receive any comments. Somatochlora (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there really 1.2 billion ring-billed gulls in the world?

That's what the article is currently claiming. I checked the source and it indeed does say that there are 1.2 billion ring-billed gulls.

Does that seem like a lot to you? Too high? I know the RBG is the ubiquitous North American seagull and North America is big, but yeah, that still seems like a lot. --Iloveparrots (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh. Two thoughts: first, if this is the output of the same modeling approach that comes up with the (generally acknowledged) massive numbers for house sparrows and European starlings, then that gives it some credence just by association. But second: having a look at the data set reveals a 95% confidence interval for the ages - lower 22 million, upper 61 billion. That is NOT a precise estimate. The CIs for all the Laridae are of that type, while the ones for the other massively abundant species look much better. Not sure to what extent they go into that in the paper - didn't read in depth - but if they do (i.e. we don't have to do WP:SYNTH) then maybe a note to that effect would be appropriate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This paper got quite a lot of discussion online when it was first published and it is very clear that many of the numbers are absolute garbage, IIRC there were a number of cases of rarer species that have very precisely estimated populations from other sources, which are outside the CI of this paper. The inclusion of Ring-billed Gull, Glaucous Gull and Alder Flycatcher among the 10 most abundant birds in the world is totally bonkers. Other sources suggest Ring-billed Gull populations in the range of 2-10 million, this paper should just be ignored. Somatochlora (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. They're also claiming that there are nearly a billion Glaucous Gulls. I missed that. There's no way that can be right. The habitats in which it lives would be unable to support nearly a billion large, carnivorous birds, especially considering how much this particular species eats. --Iloveparrots (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the individual species estimates are meant to be taken with too much certainty. It's the aggregate data that is important for this study. Elmidae points out the the 95% confidence limits are 22 million and 61 billion, a ratio of 2700. The ratio is <10 for the house sparrow, common starling and barn swallow (other top five species) but over 2000 for all four gulls in Laridae in the top 10. Looking down the list those >2000 variations seem to be a character of coastal birds (Laridae, Sulidae, etc) and albatrosses have ranges over 7000. Given the data is based on eBird observations, where the bird lives could be a factor. Perhaps the 1.2 billion estimate should note the uncertainty in some way. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reworded it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Just got online again. Thanks very much for that. Heh, I wonder if "there may be up to 61 billion ring-billed gulls" will become one of those internet factoids now? --Iloveparrots (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

California birds

Hey, does anyone know of any birds that reside in central California that need photos? I'm not a bird person but I've got a camera and I'd like to contribute! I don't feel like searching through all 4,000 pages tagged with image requests to find the ones in california. 9yz (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@9yz I mean, I would suggest you simply photograph what interests you. Its sometimes hard to predict what birds one will see, or even necessarily identify them before taking a photo. Though I would always recommend photographing unusual birds. Things that we need pictures of the most are: nests, bird behavior, videos of bird behavior (especially mating dances), photos of bird habitats (bird need not be present), and juvenile birds. Even fairly well known birds might not have photos like that. Most every bird has at least one not bad photo of it. But adults are easy enough to shoot. Its the unusual stuff that really counts! I wish you well on your birding. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do! 9yz (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@9yz: Wikipedia's sister site, Wikimedia Commons is where we store our media. It's also the largest free media repository in the world, and photos uploaded there often find uses outside of Wikimedia projects, too. So there are reasons to upload good photos of birds even if they don't make it into a Wikipedia article. There is an active photographer community on Commons, if you're interested, too. There's actually a meeting this weekend (I don't know if I'll be able to attend yet), where anyone is welcome and no experience (or expertise) is needed: see here.

While there have been several Wikipedians in North America who have taken/uploaded photos of birds, only a few are currently active, I think. I'm in New York and Frank Schulenburg comes to mind as someone active in California. Many of the high quality photos you see, however, are just what editors have been able to find with a free license on Flickr, iNaturalist, etc.

I want to second what CaptainEek said. It's hard to predict what will need a photo (or a better photo). Quality and quantity ranges dramatically. Across the board, however, we could use more video in particular. Especially if you have some experience making video, which very few in our community have. Beyond that, yes, pictures of behaviors, nests, etc. are always useful, too. In general I'd say just get out there and upload whatever good quality stuff you manage. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey 9yz, we still need tons of quality pictures for articles. I can't think of many bird species articles that don't have images at all, but there are quite a few that only have blurry low-res images. In other places some aspect for illustrating articles is missing (e.g. in-flight, eggs, hatchlings or juveniles, seasonal plumages, etc.) A couple years ago I thought of mapping the status on Commons in order to make it more obvious what's missing. I just didn't get to it as I felt too overwhelmed by the idea of doing it all by myself. – Please let me know if you're ever near Chico or in the Bay Area. I'm always happy to meet fellow bird photographers in person. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC) 

Thanks for the advice, but I'd hardly call myself a bird photographer, I've never taken a photo of one. I'm just trying to get better at taking photos and contribute at the same time. 9yz (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

9yz, no worries. It's easy to learn and I'm always open for a call if you'd like to get advice. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

SF abbreviation meaning?

While trying to save American crow, which is a GA in a sorry state, one of my sources describes a contested subspecies thusly: "C. b. caurinus (Baird, SF, 1858)". I have no idea what the "SF" means, and google was unhelpful. Do any of you know? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Captain Eek: It's a lastname-first citation for Spencer Fullerton Baird. Thanks for working on it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixing ping: @CaptainEek: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that makes a lot more sense! Most sources fail to include initials so I was quite confused... thank you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Aaah, this article....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber spicy...what makes you say that? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I worked on it ~14 years ago. A bit like Kereru...big spring cleaning jobs :/ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

NB: If anyone has access on Cornell birds website, adding some refs to American crow would be extremely appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have access and have already added some from it, but it's a big one so a lot more to add. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: okay, once you've added the core stuff from there, then is good to check for latest articles etc on scholar. I can get fulltext to lots. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it controversial to say an Amazon parrot is "stocky"?

Unrelated to what I wrote above. Yesterday I edited Amazon parrot to say that the birds are "stocky". I nearly wrote "plump", but I think that implies "fat" where "stocky" just means "wide", which they are. But someone reverted me. Is it wrong to include that do you think? --146.200.107.70 (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think changing the body of text before lead is prudent. I don't know enough about amazons to know whether it applies to all species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Alexandrine parrot taxonomy dispute.

See the discussion here. The IOC still lists this species in Psittacula, but the IUCN recently moved it to Palaeornis. Wikipedia generally uses the IOC taxonomy, correct? There are a few examples like this. The IUCN considers the eclectus parrot and red-shouldered macaw to be split into multiple species, for example... --Iloveparrots (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Also see Epauletted parakeets. --Iloveparrots (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in this? It seems that there's a species of pterodactyl, "Palaeornis" cliftii too? What a mess. --Iloveparrots (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is a wider issue affecting many species in Psittacula, which was basically exploded in a recent study[5], I brought it up earlier.[6] FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh goth, this is a mess. The taxobox on "Palaeornis" cliftii says it is a parrot, and the Taxonbar on Epauletted parakeets says it’s a pterosaur. That means detangling wikidata and taxonomy templates. But i gotta sleep, so I’m passing the buck. --awkwafaba (📥) 04:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've recreated the {{Taxonomy/"Palaeornis"}} taxonomy template, which was deleted in this discussion (@Peter coxhead:). It's too early in the morning for Wikidata. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made some changes at Wikidata, which I hope are correctly done (I've checked the facts but may not have entered them exactly as stipulated. A bot made a bunch of wikidata items on Palaeornis spp., all listed as species of reptile. Supposedly they were imported from Wikimedia project Natural History Museum. The NHM doesn't currently have entries for most of them, although Avibase and/or AVIS-IBIS have entries for most of them and confirm they are parrots rather than reptiles, but synonyms of species or subspecies. None link to Wikipedia articles because of the one-to-one correspondence restriction. Is their any other weirdness still apparent? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ducks and geese don't have crops?

See the recent edit to crop (anatomy) here. The anon rightly points out in his/her edit summary that the article states that ducks and geese don't have crops, but the article is illustrated with an image and a video showing a duck and a goose, apparently with a bulging crop. I have found some websites (e.g. this) that say that ducks and geese don't have crops too. So I have no idea. Anyone able to help? I only really know about parrots to any great extent. --Iloveparrots (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that it depends on what you call a crop. For instance, this source says "Most but not all birds have a crop, which varies from a simple expansion of the esophagus to one or two esophageal pouches." Some sources (e.g. the one above) say ducks don't have a true crop but have an expandable oesophagus. So it seems to depend on whether the term crop is used for a specialised anatomical structure (oesophageal pouches or sacks) or a functional adaptation. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe I should just remove the duck and replace it with something more unequivocal. Maybe File:Pionites_leucogaster_-Zoologico_de_Sao_Paulo_-Brazil-6a.jpg? Those seem to be a pair of obvious bulging crops. --Iloveparrots (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

How to encourage parrot to fly?

(I asked this on the reference desk too, but I think there are some parrot lovers here, so will ask it here too.)

This is about my friend's mealy amazon parrot. The vet says he's overweight, so in addition to putting him on a low calorie diet she's been trying to get him to fly so he can work out. But he doesn't want to. The parrot is at least 25 years old and mostly flies like a spruce goose on the few occasions that something scares him and he takes off (other than that, he walks and climbs everywhere). We tried picking him up like a chicken and throwing him up into the air (bean bag underneath), but all he did was flutter his wings on the way down. This was making him really angry so we stopped doing that.

Does anyone have any tips for how to do it properly, or good links? Thanks. --146.200.107.70 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some amazon/parrot keeper forums online Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked on the Lafeber site too. 146.200.107.70 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This talk page is more for discussing this WikiProject than asking about the health of your parrot, I believe. But try parrotforums.com, maybe? No idea about the website or parrot keeping, but it's just what I found. Aythya affinis (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I got an answer to my question here, by the way. Note, it's not me whose been feeding him junk food - not my birdy. From what I've seen he begs constantly for it though and then gets mad (really mad) if he doesn't get a piece of KFC, or whatever. The vet also said that his chest muscles were out of shape, so I think he needs to build them up more before he can do anything more than use his wings as air brakes. Putting him on your arm and then moving it back and forth fast to make him flap is something that has been suggested too. Less stressful than launching him into the air. --146.200.128.23 (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Bee hummingbird

If you've got a moment, consider hopping over to the Bee hummingbird talk page and commenting on the dinosaur angle of the lede. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about Encyclopedia of Life

Hi all

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Albatross

FA Albatross needs to be submitted to FAR unless someone can update. Hopefully, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Howard and Moore Checklist download

When I try to download the H & M Checklist from the hotlink I get a "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" page that says the website uses an invalid security certificate. Does anyone have any insight? Craigthebirder (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Could it be old links using http rather than https. Can you give an example link for the problem? —  Jts1882 | talk  20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's the https://www.howardandmoore.org/ link that's in the World Lists section of the page. Craigthebirder (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The link from https://www.aviansystematics.org/links goes to a different domain (https://www.howardandmoore.org/). I also get a security warning from my browser and then, when I ignore the warning, a 404 error that the resource was not found. I think that means the domain still exists but the page isn't available. There seems to be no public content. I can't find anywhere else on the Avian Systematics website to download the Excel checklist. You can still get the checklist for each family from https://www.aviansystematics.org/4th-edition-checklist, which also has the footnotes. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Craigthebirder (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Bird food, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Potential persistent disruption on animal pages

Hello all. A recently banned user, Somed00d1997, has made a prolific number of edits to animal pages. Many of these were disputed and reversed (and the user made clear that they were too smart to need consensus, which provoked multiple edit wars), but a number remain, ranging from less-trafficked species to high-profile pages like Duck. I imagine a number of them are totally fine, but I have no real expertise here, and thought it might be worthwhile to flag in case those who are more knowledgable on the subject wanted to have a look through their changes. The user also seems to have used a few sockpuppets once they were banned, including Reusensio.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sole genus member, but confusing title

The extinct NZ bird Manu antiquus has a page, but since it's the only currently known member of its genus Manu (bird). This title is extremely confusing for disambiguation purposes (Manu is the word for bird in Māori and many other Polynesian languages). Is there a better title for this article? --Prosperosity (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the binomial Manu antiquus should be the title rather than a disambiguated genus name. The project guidelines (WP:TOL) section on Article_titles says ... for a monotypic genus (one that contains a single species), the genus name should be used, as it is included in the binomial nomenclature, and the genus title is more concise than the binomial. For instance, the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides. If the name of a monotypic genus is shared with another topic, it is usually more appropriate to use a binomial as a natural disambiguation, rather than using a parenthetical disambiguating term for the genus. E.g., Alberta magna is a more natural search term than Alberta (plant genus). —  Jts1882 | talk  07:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the article as it seems clear cut. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

: Great, thank you! --Prosperosity (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Procellariidae

I have nominated Procellariidae for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Chestnut-vented nuthatch

I expanded everything at Chestnut-vented nuthatch from a GA French article, but I'm not sure how to properly cite anything, especially the books. Any help would be appreciated! 2001:4455:1A9:E100:5023:99FB:2ED1:17B6 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I can use a break from my present project. I'll go through the article and references. Feel free to let me know if you disagree with my choices. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

SchreiberBike Thank you! If there are people like you who helps me with the citations, then maybe I can translate other bird articles too and expand them soon. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:5023:99FB:2ED1:17B6 (talk)

List of birds of Vieques

If nobody objects, I'm going to simplify the Vieques list to have it conform better to the other lists. It looks like it hasn't been updated in a while, so I plan to get rid of breeding status, as well as seasonal occurrence and habitat. It looks like around 50 species should be added from the Avibase list and I have no idea regarding the status of each of those categories for the new species plus it will be easier to update moving forward.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Old FAs

this page has listed old featured articles needing review, to either be kept, sent to TFAR or delisted. Bird articles are relatively stable, but still need a look. Common raven is a case in point; it's basically OK, but some of the book refs, mainly in the mythology and folklore sections, don't have page numbers. The more eyes that look at the the articles, the more chance our hard-won FAs have of surviving. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomic genus Gracupica and its species are a mess

Gracupica and all species and subspecies beneath it are a mess. According to the Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) on-line database, Avibase - The World Bird Database, and several other sources, Gracupica only consists of two species: Gracupica nigricollis and Gracupica contra. However, the Wikipedia page for Gracupica lists four species.

While the scientific names for two species are correct (Gracupica nigricollis and Gracupica contra), the information for Gracupica contra is incorrect and the other two are subspecies of Gracupica contra which, in actuality, consists of a total of five subspecies. The information beneath the incorrect table, stating that "the International Ornithological Congress has accepted these results" is incorrect. The IOC acknowledges the hierarchy shown with ITIS.

The information shown for Gracupica contra - calling it an Indian pied myna with distribution throughout the Indian subcontinent - actually belongs to the subspecies Gracupica contra contra (yes, "contra" is repeated). Additionally Gracupica floweri should be Gracupica contra floweri, and Gracupica jalla should be Gracupica contra jalla.

The pages for the Indian pied myna, the Siamese pied myna, and the Javan pied myna all use a speciesbox to display taxonomic information. This restricts the page editors from being able to show an accurate taxonomy. In order that a correct taxonomy can be shown down to the subspecies, there is a subspeciesbox template better suited for the task.

The page for the Siamese pied myna makes no sense, stating that the Siamese pied myna (Gracupica contra floweri) "previously was considered a subspecies of the pied myna" and citing an IOC list dated 28 May 2021. At the bottom of pg. 678, of "Handbook of the Birds of the World," published in 1992, there is a photo of an Asian Pied Starling (aka, Siamese Pied Myna). The credit caption on the photo reads "Gracupica contra floweri, Bangkok, Thailand." So, back in 1992 the floweri was a subspecies of Gracupica contra then, according to whoever wrote that Wikipedia page, it was "considered a subspecies of the pied myna" until 2021, and now it is a species (not a subspecies), but ITIS, IOC, many other reliable sources still maintain that it is a subspecies of Gracupica contra.

On the Siamese pied myna page, it says that the pied myna "has now been split into three species" and references the IOC list dated 28 May 2021. I'm assuming, from the Gracupica page, that the statement on the Siamese pied myna page is in reference to what is written beneath the Species table. Go look at "Handbook of the Birds of the World," pg. 819. In 1992, Gracupica contra jalla already existed so how was it one of the three pieces that "split" from the pied myna in 2021?

I am going to take it upon myself, over the next week, to edit the pages for Gracupica, its species, and its subspecies so as to reflect accurate and wholly verifiable information. I will be certain to cite reliable sources throughout.

AdmPope (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

the Wikiproject follows IOC taxonomy.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

AdmPope: English Wikipedia uses the taxonomy and the English names in the IOC database. This database is updated every six months based mainly on the results of phylogenetic studies. In IOC version 11.2, which was released in July 2021, the pied myna was split into three species based on Baveja et al 2021. This is explained in the wikipedia articles. These artcles include references. You can access the section of the IOC database that lists these species here. Baveja et al 2021 is open access and available here. - Aa77zz (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The IUCN also recognises a species split between contra and jalla (but not floweri) and assessed three Gracupica species in 2016. The contra assessment has a taxonomic note: Gracupica contra and G. jalla (del Hoyo and Collar 2016) were previously lumped as Sturnus contra following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993).. So it looks like those two species were lumped following Sibley and now due to newer work have been split again. I also take that to mean that del Hoyo and Collar 2016 recognised the split in HBW illustrated checklist. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all the replies. I'm genuinely curious...

Are you all telling me that a subspecies such as Gracupica contra floweri had been upgraded to species status by the IOC in 2021? If so, why is it now 2022 and it appears that the IOC may be the only taxonomic authority showing this change?

What makes the IOC database more authoritative than the ITIS database which so happens to be run by an interagency group within the U.S. federal government in collaboration with international organizations?

Since there are multiple taxonomic resources online, the majority of which state that the floweri is a subspecies of the Gracupica contra species, shouldn't these alternate taxonomies at least be addressed in a section of the page titled "Taxonomy" so as to make the pages more informative and alleviate confusion?

As I write this, I am looking at the Google Sheets spreadsheet produced by IOC. According to this spreadsheet, they are considering to change the names of floweri and jalla from "myna" to "starling," which makes absolutely no sense since the difference between "myna" and "starling" is nothing more than the geographic ranging of the sturnidae, whereas, the term "starling" is for those which range throughout Europe while the term "myna" applies to those which range throughout Asia. That is, of course, unless the IOC intends to re-write the definitions for Sturnidae appearing in various encyclopedic sources such as Encyclopedia.com.AdmPope (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The different bird checklists work at different speeds and often differ. They don't assess every species every year so it can take time before changes are made. The IUCN last assessed the conservation status in 2016 so may revisit their classification soon. An IOC change from myna to starling would bring them into alignment with the other checklists; H&M, HBW/Birdlife and Cornell all use starling. Alternative classifications should always be discussed in the text, but the article titles and taxobox have to pick one. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

ITIS doesn't update very frequently. The ITIS record for Gracupica contra was last updated in 2012. Therefore, ITIS can not possibly be taking a position on whether to accept/reject the results of a study published in 2021. Also, ITIS is a secondary source, and never takes a position on whether to accept/reject the results of any particular study; ITIS positions are based on it's sources (other databases and books). Plantdrew (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomic change on the Bermuda crane?

A paper describing fossils birds of Cuba in 2020 indicates the Cuban crane (Grus cubensis) belongs to Antigone. I think the Bermuda crane (Grus latipes) known from fossil remains from Bermuda should also be transferred to Antigone because the paper describing the taxa says that the Bermuda crane's closest relative is the Sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis). It's more reasonable to say so.

Also the taxonomic updates of the fossil Pacific rails of Gallirallus and Porzana should be transferred to Hypotaenidia and Zapornia too. As the pages of the fossil Pacific doves of Gallicolumba was updated to Pampusana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If the page was created it seems more reasonable to transfer the genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 11:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

please post your comments to the wikiproject birds talk page. I don't know much about fossil taxa. There's probably someone in the project that does...Pvmoutside (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

posting this here. An editor posted this to my talk page and I have no idea about fossil taxa....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Huinculsaurus: Can you post a link to the 2020 paper, as it's hard for anyone to comment without seeing source. All edits and changes should be based on what is stated in reliable sources, so the Bermuda crane should only be transferred if the reference actually says so. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4780.1.1

This is the reference, similar to IOC transferred the Amsterdam wigeon to Mareca without a study, it's more reasonable to name the Bermuda crane as Antigone latipes if the page was created.

Why Nandayus vorohuensis is named Aratinga vorohuensis on Wikipedia I think is more likely to follow IOC taxonomy because Nandayus is found to be a synonym of Aratinga. Huinculsaurus (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We cannot make unilateral changes without a source that explicitly makes it for us. This is something that has been mentioned to you before. DID Suarez specifically move Bermuda crane to Antigone or was there only passing discussion with no taxonomic acts performed? If its the latter then the specie is still considered Grus taxonomically.--Kevmin § 17:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

IOC transferred Anas marecula to Mareca without studies, and we always follows IOC taxonomic updates. Huinculsaurus (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Huinculsaurus The IOC has not addressed Grus latipes so this isn't really relevant to this discussion.--Kevmin § 17:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

IOC Version 12.1

Just an FYI, looks like the January update, 12.1 is going to be published very soon....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

the Wikiproject follows IOC taxonomy... ~ cygnis insignis 16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Popular low quality article

What makes Great eared nightjar so popular right now? 2001:4455:1A9:E100:7973:6486:FACD:919F (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

After a search, I found that it might be this reddit post that's causing that article to spike in popularity. KakarikiNZ (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@KakarikiNZ: I added a {{high traffic}} template to the talk page. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo requests?

Articles about birds of the United States are typically fairly well illustrated, but I figured I'd post this anyway: if anyone has been working on an article about a bird species that resides in (or passes through) the northeastern USA/Atlantic Flyway and wishes there were a better picture, I'm up for a challenge.

The main goal I've set for myself for 2022 is an FP of a tufted titmouse (last year it was blue jay and northern cardinal). We'll see. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: you can check out Category:Wikipedia requested images of birds ( 1,766 ) for a few ideas.  :) --awkwafaba (📥) 02:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't imagine any birds in this part of the world have no pictures, and AFAIK we have no way to identify articles with lousy pictures. I suppose Quarry might be able to sort out a list of articles with image where the image is in a particular category and that category has no featured pictures on Commons or something, but I don't know of an easier way. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Eclectus roratus

The article for Eclectus roratus (eclectus parrot, the species, not eclectus, the genus article) currently provides a smorgasbord as an arrangement as subspecies, apparent acceptance of four species, and some 'dubious species' as a salad option. Comments? Split? ~ cygnis insignis 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm usually hesitant to split bird articles. I suggest waiting for the newest IOC list and going from there. If authorities don't agree, I'd prefer to keep it as one article until the science converges more closely. It's a pain to split articles out and then later have to merge them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

an emergent problem of splitting is attributing extant text by distinguishing characteristics from earlier sources, the studies that prompt them provide one means of discriminating which facts belong where. The IOC is concerned with establishing common names in English, following determinations that are accepted by more frequently cited taxonomic resources. ~ cygnis insignis 18:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the "eclectus as 4 species" paradigm is accepted by the IUCN. There are redlist entries for all of them. I suppose that it's only a matter of time until the IOC catches up. The article is kinda unclear at present as to why certain subspecies are considered "dubious" though. --Iloveparrots (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this was discussed some time ago, but will be a bit of a mess to figure out what photos that shows what species on Commons, no? FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The hens are reasonably easy to identify. The males are less so, unfortunately. --Iloveparrots (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Broken rangemap on Green-cheeked parakeet...

Anyone know how to fix this one? I have no idea. Someone added references and broke something, then someone else tried to fix it and made it worse... --Iloveparrots (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iloveparrots:  Done The |range_map= parameter must contain the file name and the references are not part of a valid file name (hence the error). I've added a caption citing the latest IUCN assessment which the map is based on. I've moved the Fauna Paraguay reference, but haven't checked if this is still a valid reference for the point being made. Perhaps you can check this. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Not sure about the Fauna Paraguay thing. My browser says "this plugin is not supported" on what I assume is supposed to be a map. --Iloveparrots (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see it either, but the message indicates it's a video. I've removed the reference as it suggests a distribition in northern Paraguay rather than western Paraguay as stated in the text. The map and IUCN reference support the statement better. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Useful paper about parrot welfare

Take a look at this one. Seems like the sort of paper that would be a good fit for a lot of parrot articles. I've already referenced it in a couple (contains the astounding fact that 50% of all living parrots are now living in captivity, mostly as pets! - though I suppose that makes sense when you factor in all the budgies, cockatiels, ringnecks and lovebirds). Some of you guys might be able use it in the articles you're keeping an eye on. Just a thought... --Iloveparrots (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

IP edits

Would someone please check Special:Contributions/14.201.98.90. I could revert as unexplained changes but is there any reason for the edits? Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

GTC nom for mountain pigeon

Hey, feel free to drop by at the GTC nom for mountain pigeon. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Procellariidae

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Procellariidae/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Citron-crested cockatoo has been split

Birdlife International now consider the citron-crested cockatoo to be a unique species (see my recent edits to the page). Mentioning it here because this is a fairly well-known parrot (which has a surprisingly short article). I've just noted the split in the text so far, because I know Wikipedia likes to use the IOC's taxonomy... --Iloveparrots (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

IOC still has as subspecies but agree it is very distinctive taxon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Clean-up in aisle 4 (aka Hooded crow)

A very old GA that has some tags. Will do what I can. Any help appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)