Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Birds WikiProject

General information Main project page talk  → Article requests  → Spoken Article requests talk  → Photo requests talk  → Attention needed talk  → New articles talk Project portal talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk Collaboration talk Featured topics talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Country lists talk Bird Articles By Size talk Task forces Domestic pigeon task force talk

Locked Pages V (2nd req)

• Wied's Tyrant-manakin → Wied's Tyrant-Manakin
• Saffron-crested Tyrant-manakin → Saffron-crested Tyrant-Manakin
• Serra do Mar Tyrant-manakin → Serra do Mar Tyrant-Manakin
• Pale-bellied Tyrant-manakin → Pale-bellied Tyrant-Manakin
• Sulphur-bellied Tyrant-manakin → Sulphur-bellied Tyrant-Manakin
• Scrub-bird → Scrubbird
• Rufous Scrub-bird → Rufous Scrubbird
• Noisy Scrub-bird → Noisy Scrubbird
• Western Grasswren → Thick-billed Grasswren (**oops on this one, I moved prematurely, sorry)
• Yodelling Honeyeater → Yodeling Honeyeater
• Smoky Honeyeater → Common Smoky Honeyeater
• Black-chested Honeyeater → Black-necklaced Honeyeater
• Ed Helmetshrike → Red-billed Helmetshrike (computer problem)
• Grey-crested Helmet-shrike → Grey-crested Helmetshrike
• Yellow-crested Helmet-shrike → Yellow-crested Helmetshrike
• Gabela Helmet-shrike → Gabela Helmetshrike

More locked pages.....These are mostly cosmetic......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC) and adding these:

• Mount Kupe Bush-shrike → Mount Kupe Bushshrike
• Fiery-breasted Bush-shrike → Fiery-breasted Bushshrike
• Lagden's Bush-shrike → Lagden's Bushshrike
• Green-breasted Bush-shrike → Green-breasted Bushshrike
• Grey-headed Bush-shrike → Grey-headed Bushshrike
• Monteiro's Bush-shrike → Monteiro's Bushshrike
• Sulphur-breasted Bushshrike → Orange-breasted Bushshrike
• Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike → Black-faced Cuckooshrike
• Black-headed Cuckoo-shrike → Black-headed Cuckooshrike
• Yellow Flycatcher → Little Yellow Flycatcher
• Crested Shrike-tit → Crested Shriketit
• Banda Sea Whistler → Yellow-throated Whistler
• Malagsy Kestrel → Malagasy Kestrel (typo....sorry)

......Pvmoutside (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll sort these for you in the next few minutes... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Right... all done, I think. Let me know if I've missed/screwed anything up... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that User:Bidgee has now undone several of these moves, with the rationale "per WP:COMMONNAME, IOC has no say (on common names for AU birds) nor is there a consensus on en Wiki that IOC's naming must be used". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kurt Shaped Box....I've got a note into Bidgee, we'll see what comes back......hopefully it won't turn into a big deal like the capitalization problem......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Received a note back from Bidgee: Looks like Bidgee is only challenging the Australian birds in the latest crop of IOC changes. Not a lot of birds. It only involves the dash in this case, so the Scrubbirds (IOC) remain as the scrub-birds, the Crested Shriketit(IOC) remains as the Crested Shrike-tit, and the Black-faced Cuckooshrike (IOC) remains as Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike. Bidgee is justifying rationale through WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I've tagged each of the birds with the IOC Exception tag. All of the articles are in the beginning stages of development, so it probably isn't a big deal to make this a big issue. The only minor inconsistency is with the Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike. All the other cuckooshrike species pages have Cuckooshrike unhyphenated. Thought you all may want to know.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not that we need to do this for hyphens (though we might want to), but Bidgee says there's no Wikipedia-wide consensus to use the IOC names. If we want a Wikipedia-wide consensus, what would we have to do? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, hasn't the project universally used the IOC names pretty much, up until this? That's WP:CONSENSUS - consensus can be achieved through normal editing as well as through outright discussion. If all other bird articles use the IOC names, arguing there's no consensus to do so is a somewhat (pardon the pun) specious argument. That said, presumably a !voting discussion here would be one way to establish "discussed consensus", whereas (if that's not considered "Wikipedia-wide" enough for the objecting editor) a RFC would be another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, yes, the project has adopted this, but not all of Wikipedia (even though 99.99% couldn't care less). And heck, you have only to look at the recent caps brouhaha to see how very little credit is given to anything a project decides on its own. The fact that we're even having this discussion is even being used to indicate that our use of the IOC list (including, presumably its use of capitals) is controversial. MeegsC | Talk 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So, basically, the project is damned if you do, damned if you don't? Nice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, up until a couple of years ago, quite a few non-IOC bird names were used across the 'pedia. When attempts were made to mostly standardize the names per IOC (which at the time, I was in the minority that argued against it - not that I particularly care about it any more), some heated(ish) debate was generated within the project. Particularly with regards to the Conures and other parrot species which are commonly kept as pets and can have different names within aviculture. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any reason for not using the IOC names here. I suggest that the term "cuckooshrike" is used. If some have a hyphen and some do not, then the lists on genus pages will look odd. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing common names

During the current capitalizationathon, Curtis Clark suggested that all common names of taxa should be sourced. This makes sense to me—we're supposed to source everything else—and for birds, we do have a source. What would people think of adding a footnote to every lead sentence so it would look like "The Short-tailed Longtail¹ (Macrourus brevicaudatus) is a beyond-rare bird of southern Zembla..."

¹Gill, F. and D. Donsker (Eds). 2012. IOC World Bird Names (v 2.11). [Accessed "Date"].

? Maybe this could be tried first with candidates for GA and FA, as our extra-special sourced articles that get feedback, and if it goes over well, maybe a bot could do it for the rest. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than putting it on the first line, perhaps the to of the taxobox would be a better place? I've been doing that for a while. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest that; many articles put it in the taxobox, eg. Common chimpanzee. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad this is already being done, and the taxobox seems like a good place. Do we want this to be a project policy? (I must say "robust chimpanzee" was new to me.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

They would be sourced in the taxonomy and naming section. I generally do this already. All info in lead should be expanded upon in the body where the inline ref can go). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Casliber. It is important information to cite, but this should be done in prose. People needs to stop putting unique information and sources in infoboxes, since all sorts of sites and applications that re-use WP content drop non-inline template cruft entirely (e.g. any floating <div>...</div>), and infoboxes are nothing but such templates. They're just bullet-point summaries of misc. factoids, not independent mini-articles. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, taxonomy section in longer articles, first line in stubs; Should include publisher, International Ornithologists' Union, in cite. This is mine for Common Tern: Gill, F; Donsker D (eds). "IOC World Bird Names (v 2.11)". International Ornithologists' Union. http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-shorebirds.html.  Retrieved 28 February 2012 (author and date style are my preferred, obviously not binding on others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

• Wikipedia:Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
• Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. A large section of the article discusses Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (138)

• Bird 1380 File:Phoebetria palpebrata - SE Tasmania.jpg | Some opinions on this too please. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect this is also a Sooty, but it's a young bird, so harder to tell. Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Rohan Clarke tells me this is an immature Sooty Albatross, based on "some colour on the sulcus and some patchiness in the plumage", as well as "The bird is too brown-toned for a LMSA especially across the body and wings. LMSA are always much colder grey-toned. In all plumages they should also show a lovely pale steely grey back whereas your bird is quite dark brown. Some LMSA individuals can get paler than a typical adult LMSA with wear, especially juveniles but they never get darker. Your nice flight shots also show that the wings are too broad and good head profiles show that the bill is too robust and not 'pinched' mid-way along its length as you would expect for an LMSA." based on other shots from other individuals too. I'm therefore moving the image. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that after moving a file on Commons, it is usually a good idea to delete the redirect from a file name with the wrong name to the new file with the good name. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sooty Albatross is now at File:Phoebetria fusca immature - SE Tasmania.jpg. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that before deleting a redirect on Commons, it is usually a good idea to fix any references to the file. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that a useless redirect is a redirect from a file name of the wrong species going to the correctly named file. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1381. File:Accipiter nisus -England -female-8.jpg | Eurasian Sparrowhawk. Female or juvenile? Snowman (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a juvenile. Adults of both sexes have uniform grey upperparts. Other pointers are the rufous fringes to the feathers on the visible part of the wing and the coarse, fringed barring on the underparts. Females have neater and greyer barring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Moved to File:Accipiter nisus -England -juvenile-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1382. File:Accipiter nisus -Croydon, London, England -juvenile-8.jpg | Eurasian Sparrowhawk. Female or juvenile? Snowman (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Juvenile, for the same reasons listed for 1381. MeegsC | Talk 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1383. File:Pseudoseisura cristata -Paraiba, Brasil-8.jpg | Caatinga Cacholote probably in Brazil to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Confirm, and it would have to be in Brazil as it is an endemic. That guy has some nice images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. First image of this species on the Wiki. Shown in infobox. I plan to remove the watemark soon. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1384. This image File:Great Egret with eggs on nest.jpg doesn't look like a Great Egret. Dger (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's either Little or Western Reef Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Egretta garzetta for me.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that it is helpful if the person, who has listed an image here would do any subsequent work to tidy up and correct the file details including tagging the file for renaming. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Little Egret moved to File:Egretta garzetta -Arignar Anna Zoo, Vandalur, Chennai, India -adult and eggs-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1385. File:Unidentified bird -Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany -taxidermy-8a.jpg | Unidentified stuffed bird in a museum. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Polyplectron? Such as the Malayan Peacock-Pheasant or Bornean Peacock-Pheasant? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe the Gray Peacock-Pheasant? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a male bicalcaratum. I won't attempt to race the specimen - slightly foxed.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gray Peacock-Pheasant moved to File:Polyplectron bicalcaratum -Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany -taxidermy-8a.jpg on Commons.

• Bird 1386. File:Unidentified hornbill -zoo -head-8a.jpg | Unidentified hornbill in a zoo. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Immature Buceros h. hydrocorax.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rufous Hornbill moved to File:Buceros hydrocorax -zoo -immature-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1387. File:Unidentified dove -zoo -head-8a.jpg | Unidentified dove in a zoo. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ptilinopus o. occipitalis (an adult bird).Steve Pryor (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yellow-breasted Fruit Dove moved to File:Ptilinopus occipitalis -zoo -adult-8a.jpg on Commons. First photograph of this species on en Wiki shown in infobox. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1388. File:Unidentified bird -zoo-8a.jpg | Unidentified bird-of-prey in a zoo. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Immature Falco s. severus.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oriental Hobby moved to File:Falco severus -zoo -immature-8a.jpg on Commons and shown in infbox on en Wiki. I do not usually show juveniles in the infobox, but the only other image of this species on Commons is not very good. Should this image be moved out of the infobox and placed with the main text of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1389. File:Motacilla citreola -Gurgaon, Haryana, India -male-8 (1).jpg | Citrine Wagtail. Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Any citreola with a totally yellow head is always an adult male. This particular bird has already almost totally completed the transition to breeding plumage. It is an adult male bird, nominate race citreola citreola.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Subspecies and plumage details added to image description without implying corroboration. This photographs looks slightly overexposed to me, so I have not shown it on the en wiki article. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When I follow the image link, I only get a placemarker, no image (just this file) Any thoughts? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons or en Wiki does that sometimes. I did not see the image today until I clicked on the link to the image, which I found where the image is usually seen. If you are viewing from within Commons (ie have the Commons icon in the upper left hand corner instead of the "Wiki globe"), then the image is seen normally. If this does not work, then try again later. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, link works, strange that it's just this image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver

It looks as if I'll be going to Vancouver in the summer for a family event. Sibley should be OK for bird ID, can anyone recommend a site guide to this area (I was rather hoping in would be in the World Cities birding guide, but it isn't...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Try these areas: Iona Island (British Columbia), Wreck Beach, George C. Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary. They are all in the south of Vancouver but not far. Dger (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've just come back from seeing Common Yellowthroat and Lesser Scaup in South Wales, there was also a Bonaparte's Gull in Cardiff, at this rate I'll have a decent 2012 NAm year list before I get there (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bird anatomy - circulation

Please see Talk:Bird#Left/Right_and_Pulmonary/Systemic. Shyamal (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied over there. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (139)

• Bird 1390. File:Motacilla alba -Haryana, India-8.jpg | White Wagtail probably in India. Is it possible to identify subspecies? Snowman (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an alba personata, an adult male. It is still mostly in the winter plumage but it is starting to transition (the only difference between the two personata plumages in the adult male being that it has a whitish moustachial, and a white throat in winter, and the breeding plumaged male loses all of that throat white and the throat becomes totally black.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that it looked like that subspecies, but its location does not correspond to the range on File:MotacillaAlbaDistribution.svg, which is shown on the en Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would rather trust my references, including "Pipits & Wagtails of Europe, Asia and North America", Per Alstrom and Krister Mild.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Would agree with M. a. personata. That map in any case says nothing about wintering ranges. Shyamal (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. It could be informative if the approximate time of year that the illustration is applicable is included in the image description on Commons. I have added to the image description on Commons that the wintering rages are different. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1391. File:Kingfisher Korea.jpg Nice pic, obviously not as claimed, but I don't have a book for the region Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Varied Tit. Maias (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a just recently discovered Kingfisher that goes by the "misleading" name of Poecile v. varius, an adult - Varied Tit. Incidentally, the photo on the species page is also a nominate race varius varius, shot in the Japanese Alps on Honshu.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Cyanistes varius varius Korea.jpg Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1392. File:Trachyphonus erythrocephalus -Africa-8.jpg | Red-and-yellow Barbet. Is this the female? The one in the infobox looks different. Snowman (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the call on this one. "In Africa", well, I will take it on faith though it appears strange that he only shot one bird shot in his "safari". It is included in a mixed-bag set obviously captive animals somewhere! Nonetheless, the photo already on the species page is an adult male nominate erythrocephalus erythrocephalus. The bird in object is an adult female nominate.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that I might have been mislead with the set saying; "wild animals". Thank you for commenting on the location. Now at File:Trachyphonus erythrocephalus -adult female-8a.jpg. Shown on en Wiki species page. Is the one in the infobox of the species page a male? Snowman (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I already commented above. To reiterate, the one on the species page infobox is an adult male nominate race erythrocephalus erythrocephalus. The one we just looked at is the adult female of the same race erythrocephalus erythrocephalus (I don't need a location to determine the race).Steve Pryor (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Captioning and image descriptions completed. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1393. File:Telespiza cantans -male-8.jpg | Laysan Finch. Is it a male? Snowman (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Impossible to say, according to my sources. Adult males lack streaking on the mantle, which this bird has. And females are said to "look more and more like adult males as they age". In my opinion, this bird is not sexable. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Telespiza cantans-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1394. File:Saxicola rubicola -Malta-8.jpg | European Stonechat to confirm identification. Is this a female or a juvenile? Snowman (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not likely to be a juvenile in Feb, but a bit dull for a full adult female, also some streaking on throat. I'd go for a female in late first-winter plumage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1395. File:Unidentified dove -San Diego Zoo, California, USA-8a.jpg | Unidentified dove in a zoo. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Chalcophaps indica, adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Chalcophaps indica -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -male-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I clicked the link and arrived just to some sort of editing page, without the image.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. The typo was the missing ":File:". Snowman (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1396. File:Ceryle rudis -Dighal, District Jhajjar, Haryana, India -hovering-8.jpg | Is it possible to identify this as a male or female from this view? Snowman (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Snow, you need at least a partial view of the breast, so, no, not from this photo.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have added an explanation of that in image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1397. File:Unidentified bird -Malta-8.jpg | A sparrow probably on Malta. Snowman (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A Spanish Sparrow. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Passer hispaniolensis -Malta-8.jpg and selected to be shown in the infobox on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1398. File:Zonotrichia querula -California, USA-8.jpg | Harris's Sparrow to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. A winter adult (and not very common in California, I believe). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a vagrant there. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1399. File:Motacilla alba -Tokyo, Japan-8 (2).jpg | White Wagtail probably in Japan. Is it possible to identify subspecies? Snowman (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For me, adult female, winter plumage lugens.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bird names and article titles" overhaul

Now that most of the bickering has died down, I've been working on synchronizing all the guidelines and conventions and such to stop wildly disagreeing with one another (my original goal in reapproaching the "animal caps" issue). In the process of working on WP:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles toward this end, I couldn't help but notice that it had a lot of other problems. Being a wikignome, I took a stab at fixing all of them at once.

The result of this overhaul is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/naming sandbox.

I hope it will meet with your approval. I've put a lot of time and thought into it, with an eye to easing tension, de-mystifying the project's convetion, reducing unnecessary conflict with MOS, keeping readers in mind and reducing the palimpsestuous nature of the continually re-re-edited section, which had gotten harder and harder to follow over the years.

I'm not an ornithologist, though I have a lot of non-professional experience in herpetology and felinology. Hopefully I have not inadvertently introduced any errors. The possibility of doing so is one of the reasons I did all the editing in a sandbox (the other being tension reduction). I'm actually fairly good at this sort of thing. See, e.g., my total rewrite of WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines, before (virtually impenetrable) and after, a lean, clean form that's hardly changed since I overhauled it just short of 5 years ago, after lengthy disputes, and it was accepted with very little tweaking. I hope this will satisfy, too, and stand a similar test of time.

The redraft does not do anything to change basic WP:BIRDS capitalization practice as enunciated here. The most interesting changes that I can recall off the top of my head, in no particular order:

• Updated to use current IOC naming rules (it was way out of date, esp. on the "Black-headed Cuckooshrike"-type cases)
• Better logical flow
• Eliminated redundant wording
• Uses examples that aren't confusing
• Cleaned up wikicode (wiki not HTML table, semantic markup, etc.)
• Normalized to UK spelling (there were some Americanisms)
• Advised ways to avoid conflict
• Made it agree with WP policies and guidelines, without saying anything judgmental
• Numerous wording clarifications
• More links
• Reduction of jargon
• Removal of various forms of vague, uncertain or weakly-phrased wording, and opted for consistent, affirmative advice, not lack of advice, when possible
• Clearer reliance on IOC as a standard
• Clarification per WT:BIRDS#Capitalizing the NON-standard common names not to capitalize non-IOC names names recognized by no authorities
• Clarification on what to do about non-bird species in same article, per MOS
• Noted clearly, with {{As of}}, where things are in flux.
• Any time I could link to existing MOS/AT/NC guidance in support of something here, I did so, to reduce the "making stuff up as they go along" perception problem this project has long had
• Deleted a non sequitur about what other projects should or shouldn't do (out-of-scope and WP:BEANSy, even inflammatory)
• Note about bird breeds (no consensus)
• Increased suggestions for redirecting to make things easier on readers and non-expert editors

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This section is incorrect: Clarification per WT:BIRDS#Capitalizing the NON-standard common names not to capitalize non-IOC names. The convention is that accepted names, regardless from which authority they gain acceptance, are all capitalized. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone in this project seems to agree with this. E.g. BushRanger said 'IMHO, "non-standard" names shouldn't be capitalised.' This is actually kind of important, because the main reason people are hopefully going to be more prone to leaving your capitalization practice alone is its being tied to a specific, international authority. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with Bushranger on this. I suspect you do not interpret "non-standard" the same way the rest of us do. A non-standard name is a name that has never at any point been accepted by any nomenclatural/taxonomic authority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's what s/he actually said: "IMHO, "non-standard" names shouldn't be capitalised. "Rock Pigeon", caps; "Rock Dove", as a former name, caps..." Which is exactly what Jerry and I are trying to convey here. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I grok it now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it was somebody else, not me, who was trying to convey that. Anyway, I regret to say that I'm not sure we've covered everything yet. Do we think of things like monographs (such as Forshaw's Parrots of the World) and field guides (such as Howell and Webb's Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America) as taxonomic authorities whose non-IOC names should be capitalized? Likewise names in scientific papers, such as "Fenwick's Antpitta" even if it never appears in an international list? I'm inclined to think we do, but maybe others don't. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should. That's how it's done in all the literature I've ever seen. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like random/open-ended criteria, though. "How it's done in the all the literature" appears to be "capitalize with impunity", which is exactly why people have been chomping on the ankles of this project for seven years. What the literature does for its own internal purposes is a very different angle than "do what IOC does because it's an internationally, near-universally accepted standard", which is a quite strong rationale. "Do what any 'regional authority' does" is a considerably weaker one. "Capitalize with impunity just because [[WP:ILIKEIT|we're used to it in orn. journals" directly leads to strife. There needs to be some kind of clearly defined, defensible rationale, with criteria that aren't confusing or open to wild interpretation, or the fighting will never end. I don't mean from me (I'm not fighting about it any longer), I mean from all of the many completely different people who bring this debate up endlessly, here, at WT:MOS, WT:MOSCAPS, WT:FAUNA, WT:TOL, WP:VPP, an in RMs and RfCs on large numbers of article talk pages. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "regional" mean in the phrase "regional" authorities? Is it sub-national (e.g. the Oregon Ornithological Society) or only supra-national (e.g. North American, European, Asian, etc.)? The word is vague. If supra-national is intended, are you sure this is the intent? I would seem to denigrate the ABA, AOU, BOU, OBC, etc. as possibly authoritative. If sub-national is intended, what are the inclusion criteria? Four people could form an "Albuquerque, New Mexico Ornithology Society" but that wouldn't make them reliable for anything. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think what Bushranger may be getting at is that we treat genuine alternative names which may appear in other authorities as equivalent, so Sand Martin (Bank Swallow in North America) is fine, whereas "tarrock" as a non-standard Scottish dialect term for Common Tern appears in no authorities, and wouldn't be bolded or capped. That seems entirely consistent usage to me. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, SMcCandlish, you are looking for a problem where none exists. ABA is not a taxonomic authority at all. AOU covers dozens of countries: all of North America and the Caribbean north of Colombia. There are no sub-national taxonomic authorities. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimfbleak is correct in my intent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. My "regional" question has been answered. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated the draft, per the above. Has it gotten anything else wrong? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correct link to the discussion on "The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)..." I fixed it at the project page without changing the wording.

One thing that jumps out at me is "Someone writing on a sports team called the "Christchurch King Penguins" may properly refer to "their namesake the [[king penguin]]" without worrying about species capitalisation rules of the ornithology context, which many readers find jarring in more general prose (this has frequently lead to editwarring and criticism of the capitalisation convention)." Is all this really necessary? Have people been adding capitals to bird names in non-bird articles in the last few years? Has this been leading to edit warring and criticism of the convention? Does anyone need an official explanation of "jarring"? There could easily have been many such cases that I wouldn't have known about, but if not, I think the previous text is sufficient. If it a revision is necessary, I think we have a great deal more evidence for "some" than for "many", as I've said before. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jerry on all points. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Much of that "Christchurch King Penguins" text, and its general structure and intent, isn't mine; I just tried to clarify what was already there. I'm not wedded to particular wording or to its existence. I thought the link was helpful, since we actually have some "principle of least astonishment" stuff that seems applicable, but if you don't like it, axe it. If the entire passage were cut, the remaining text arguably gets the point across anyway. To answer the actual questions (which are good questions on their own, regardless of the "Christchurch" passage): "Have people been adding capitals to bird names in non-bird articles in the last few years?" Yes, virtually everywhere (and not just birds, but the practice has spread from bird articles). "Has this been leading to edit warring and criticism of the convention?" Emphatically yes. Where do you think the last 2 months of debate came from? And the brouhaha before that, and the one before that, and...? The majority of criticism of the caps convention, I can assure you, is coming from people who encounter its fallout in other articles. I've been trying to make that point really clearly for several years now.  :-) It's not because people are running into the capitalization of "House Sparrow" in the article House Sparrow; orn. articles are not particularly high-visibility. I don't mean that as an insult, like "no one reads your work"; rather, articles on particular species get a lot fewer hits than articles on TV shows and other pop-culture stuff, which sometimes mention birds, which usually get capitalized there because people think "It's an insider Wikipedia thing to capitalize birds" (and, by analogy/imitation, other animals, more and more). Just like a zillion people who had never encountered the news journalism jargon term "lede" in their lives began misusing it here on a daily basis after WP:LEAD started promoting it at the whim of some journo editor. WP is enough of a long-term, in-depth online community that it is demonstrably subject to internal fads, fashions and other memetic "flus", capitalizing animal names all over the place being a major one. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I cut that whole passage from the sandbox draft, and it actually does read perfectly clearly without it. So, good catch! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Urrao Antpitta. Let's settle this.

Discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grallaria_fenwickorum#Move_to_Urrao_Antpitta Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I was just thinking this morning that this needs to be solved. If we don't get a good response, I'd like to ask for comments elsewhere, such as TOL. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Most welcome, Jerry. Move successful. No votes against. I've begun to clean up the article to reflect the change, but I'm sure I've missed something. Might be worth checking out if anyone has a spare moment. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with redirects:

• Redirect White-breasted Ground Dove leads to Purple Ground Dove Snowman (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect Purple Ground Dove leads to White-breasted Ground Dove Snowman (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to matter that much. There is not even a stub as far as I could determine. In any case, prout IOC = White-breasted Ground Dove. Other english common names that have been in the past commonly used for this bird (Gallicolumba jobiensis), are Purple Ground-Dove, Purple Ground-dove, White-bibbed Ground-Dove, White-bibbed Ground-dove.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I created a stub and fixed the redirects. Dger (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New stub is at Gallicolumba jobiensis. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry had a typo when I did the move. The page listing is at is White-beasted Ground Dove (I missed the r in breasted). Should be OK once the page is fixed. Was going to let y'all know in the next set of locked page changes,, didn't think anyone would care until then......Pretty quick Snowmaradio!....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not leave articles and redirects in a bad mess like this. It seems that you left one article orphaned with the wrong name and virtually inaccessible. This mess with page names is denying readers access to this page (this dove article got 253 views in February 2012). I have changed the new stub that User Dger kindly made back to a redirect. Look at all the inconvenience this has caused. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

An administrator kindly deleted a page and I moved the dove to the correct page. I have also fixed a number of redirects. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

White-necked Rockfowl

Hello, in White-necked Rockfowl#Reproduction it's written: "The White-necked Rockfowl has two breeding seasons throughout the year" then "Guinean birds breed from July to January, while those in Sierra Leone breed from November to February and from April to October". Does it mean that Guinean Rockfowl have only one breeding season, or that they have two clutches in six months? Totodu74 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question that someone with the cited Fry-African-birds reference needs to answer. I would however imagine that it is not two clutches but two peaks in breeding (before and after the rains) - a pattern that is also found in the Asian Monsoon zone. Shyamal (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes sense indeed. (I still wait for a sure answer from the reference anyway) Totodu74 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bird dimensions

An IP, who seems to be interested in bird sizes, has been editing articles about large birds; see these edits. I am not certain about these bird sizes, because different sources might say different things. Snowman (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This IP and similar ones beginning with 86.46 (originating in Dublin, Ireland) have been making these sorts of edits before. The edits appear to be constructive but if you try to verify them the references don't exist or are too vague to even find. Usually, several editors waste a lot of time reverting the edits. Here we go again. Dger (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I'm reverting on sight now. I see no evidence that he's editing in good faith. I know that other people on WP:BIRDS have been too... but speaking of reverting, could anyone reverting him please make sure to revert *past* any intervening bot edits to the last non-86.4* edit? They interspace themselves with his edits sometimes. Just something I noticed the last time I reverted him. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Any edit that includes oiseaux-birds.com as a citation should, in most cases at least, be reverted. For this reason. He also has a tendency to use citations that scores low at WP:RS, e.g. blogs. Somewhat related, I just discovered large parts of Ferguson-Lees and Christie's Raptors of the World are available on google books. Just search for its name at books.google.com. The typical measurements (wingspan, total length) are at the plates; other more detailed measurements are the end of the main species text. Use the search on the lower left of the book's page to find the sections fast (in general, specific name is the most effecient, e.g. pelagicus for Steller's Sea Eagle). Handbook of the Birds of the World, quoted in several eagle owls, provides the following total lengths and weights: Great Horned (male 51 cm and 680-1450 g, female 60 cm and 1000-2500 g), Magellanic Horned (c.45 cm), Eurasian (60-75 cm, male 1500-2800 g, female 1750-4200 g), Rock (56 cm, c.1100 g), Pharaoh (46-50 cm, male c.1900 g, female c. 2300 g), Cape (48-58 cm, male 900-1400 g, female 1200-1800 g), Spotted (c.45 cm, male 490-620 g, female 640-850 g), Greyish (c.43 cm, c.500 g), Fraser's (39-45 cm, male c.575 g, female 685-815 g), Usambara (48 cm, 770-875 g), Forest (51-64 cm), Barred (40-46 cm), Shelley's (c.61 cm, one male 1257 g), Verreaux's (60-65 cm, male 1615-1960 g, female 2475-3115 g), Dusky (48-53 cm), Akun (40-46 cm, male 485-535 g, female 525-610 g), Philippine (40 cm), Blackiston's (60-72 cm). We're not exactly innocent in using questionable citations either: In the Eurasian Eagle Owl, we used oiseaux-birds.com, and the upper weight measurements were based on this blog, itself a questionable source, but even more so when the relevant text is "Boo’s [some captive bird] carer told us that she weighs about 10 pounds (4.5 kg). That’s typical for females." She weights "about" and that's "typical". Really!? I removed that citation and changed it to a combination of owlpages.com and Handbook of the Birds of the World. –212.10.93.66 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the same principle as the "diet of frogs", but with the added tweak of pseudo-references; either not RS, or RS (like HBW) but no page numbers, so you could waste a lot of time trying to check, assuming that you had access. I revert on sight too, and I've blocked occasionally, but this appears to be a dynamic ISP (not a proxy, or the bot would block). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it is worth making a page "List of the one hundred largest birds" (possibly partitioned into family or order sections) with referenced dimensions, and this can help us to decide when to revert. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to do anything that has the effect of ranking the great eagles in order of size, expect a firestorm (or perhaps a string of gradual passive-aggressive figure-changing from uncommunicative IPs). Ever notice how people seem to like to big up their favourite eagle, whilst diminishing the others? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Symposiachrus

Resolved

Looks like someone misspelled Symposiachrus and created the redirects below. Ive moved all to the correct spelling. Should we keep the mispells or delete them. Misspells as follows:

• Symposiarchus axillaris
• Symposiarchus guttula
• Symposiarchus mundus
• Symposiarchus sacerdotum
• Symposiarchus boanensis
• Symposiarchus trivirgatus
• Symposiarchus bimaculatus
• Symposiarchus leucurus
• Symposiarchus everetti
• Symposiarchus loricatus
• Symposiarchus brehmii
• Symposiarchus manadensis
• Symposiarchus infelix
• Symposiarchus menckei
• Symposiarchus verticalis
• Symposiarchus barbatus
• Symposiarchus browni
• Symposiarchus vidua

and 1 of my bad (missed the r...sorry)

• Symposiachus manadensis

......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete the erroneous spelling. This is a mistake in orthography, not an alternative spelling! This is one of the ways in which so much of the mistaken information has crept into the grey literature of ornithology. To keep the mistaken spelling around is to add a certain valence to it. Out, damn'd spot!Steve Pryor (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic Steve! Then can someone do the honors since I can't.....(also another misspell-my computer acted up- delete Ed Helmetshrike. Thanks....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear.....

Crown (anatomy) is ...erm...interesting. Needs an overhaul. Anyone with some bird anatomy books - could be a DYK maybe. Am posting this as am tidying up a couple of other things before hitting the hay....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

<giggles> I'm not sure making the article bird-specific would be justified though. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The current "crown (anatomy)" article seems to be to bias towards bird anatomy. Can a separate article on "Crown (bird anatomy)" be justified? Do all birds have a crown, not just the ones with a crown that stands out because of contrasting feather colours? Do all mammals have a crown too, at least the ones with roundish heads? I am not sure if reptiles and insects have a crown or not, and I think that most of them do not have round heads. A modified "Crown (anatomy)" article, might be along the same lines as the Temple (anatomy) or Occiput article. According the the wiki article on occiput, insects have an occiput. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all birds have crowns, just as they all have eyes and feet. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I could tell you about this one gull that was part of my local flock years ago that didn't. Have feet, that is. (S)he would be either sitting or flying. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Touché. :-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. But seriously - I've been thinking about this and I've remembered about all the feral pigeons I've seen that have feet and toes in various states of rotting, falling apart and dropping off. Does anyone know what causes this? Don't know if it's something more prevalent amongst feral pigeons than other birds, or if it's just that there are lots of feral pigeons around and some of them come quite close and thus, I notice that some of them seem to be suffering from something like dry gangrene. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Guesses: could be frostbite, could be strangulation due to debris/droppings adherent to toes, could be trauma caused bird traps at various stop-off areas during migrations), could be trauma due to bites from meat-eating animals or territorial fights. I expect any of these could lead to infection including gangrene. Snowman (talk)

Roosting/breeding/loitering amongst the rotting carcasses of their deceased brethren probably isn't helpful either. If that actually really happens. Or is that just anti-street-pigeon propaganda (i.e. "look! they're so stupid/dirty/immoral that they even associate with corpses - how can you say that these things deserve to live?" - well, that would *seem* to be the unspoken subtext)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, unless there is much more than I would expect on the crown of the head, a general animal article should do. I would think that there would need to be some distinction made between the actual crown of the head, presumably present in most terrestrial vertebrates, and the appearance of a crown as in the (unnecessary) listed species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In insects this or something near it is called the Vertex_(anatomy), maybe a candidate for a merger. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Top of head (biology)? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a tighter (bird related) definition with ref. I think when used in common names it often has a somewhat looser meaning, dependent on plumage colouration. Maias (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If a separate crown article for birds is justified it would be because the term is used so widely in bird identification. I guess an alternative would be to have it in Wiktionary instead. Maias (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that in the study of human anatomy the term "crown" is not used much or it has no strict definition; however, Calvaria (skull), "skullcap", "skull cap", or the "roof of the cranial cavity" are used. I have been looking at a 996 page book on human anatomy, but so far I have only found the term crown with reference to teeth. Perhaps, something will turn up in other books or dictionaries. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• From the OED: there are many meanings mainly about roundish things on the top of something. It also says that the crown is the top of the head and alternatively the whole head. One specific anatomical use in the OED is for "The eminence on the head of a whale, in which the blow-holes are situated." It has several meaning in plant anatomy also. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there is little scope for a general anatomical article on "crown" beyond a brief definition or disambiguation. With regard to the bird crown, there would be scope for a section in a article on "bird topography" (as well as bird anatomy - which is what the phrase redirects to, though it is not properly covered there, despite the excellent illustration). Such a section should focus on the visual aspect - skin or feather texture and colouration, including any crest - and its function in identification, whether by humans or conspecifics. There is really not much to say about "crown" as the top part of the skull; it can easily be covered in the anatomy article. Maias (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

With a heading "Crown (anatomy)" it is not primarily a bird article. Shed is also an article about different structures of sheds, so "Crown" article might be like the article on "Shed". Snowman (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the scope of the article be reduced by re-naming it "Crown (vertebrate anatomy)", so that plant anatomy is not included or should plant anatomy be included? Should it be converted into a SIA? Snowman (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure that it fits a set index easily, though some sort of dab would be useful. I want to emphasise, however, that for birds "crown" is largely an ID term. It is not about the 3D upper part of the skull but about the curved 2D visual surface. In this sense the term is used in a different way to that usually applying to most other animals. Maias (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a mass of feathers on the top of a bird's head is not a 2D structure. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from crown also being an anatomical designation in plants, the crown of the teeth are also technically anatomical which confuses the scope even more.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just set up a glossary for strictly bird anatomical parts, and then use that as a backstop for cross-linking from bird articles as necessary? Dictionaries of ornithology do exist. I use this one: http://www.amazon.com/Ornithologists-Dictionary-Johannes-Erritzoe/dp/8496553434Steve Pryor (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's sort out the confusion. There may or may not be justification for an article on the anatomical feature. I don't think that article exists, whether it should is another matter. The article under discussion is effectively about the plumage feature, and consists mainly of a list of birds with crown in the name. It makes as much sense as having an article toe (bird) with Short-toed Eagle, Short-toed Treecreeper, Long-toed Stint etc. Proposal 1 — convert this article to a redirect to feather, add a sentence there. Separate Proposal 2 consider whether there is a need for an article on the anatomical feature, either for birds or all vertebrates; if so, write a stub Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)