Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds
General information
Main project page talk
Naming and capitalization
 → Article requests
 → Spoken Article requests talk
 → Photo requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project portal talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
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
edit · changes

English name vs. Scientific name[edit]

It is possible to move these articles back to the English name or is anyone opposed? --Melly42 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not know much about these birds, but the person who moved the pages says that the scientific names are the most commonly used name in the edit summaries. If this is the case, then I would think that the scientific names would be kept. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The question is whether we should accept (adopt) the common names proposed by BirdLife/IUCN or not (all these names are published in a new BirdLife-Lynx checklist published by Lynx edicions this month) --Melly42 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
WP birds uses IOC bird names unless there is a good reason not to, but WP Birds has had lower case bird names imposed on it. I have had a look at examples of some of the pages on the lynxeds website and it looks like lynxeds use capitalized names. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Good argument about IOC naming convention, except in the case of Mew/Common Gull. Common Gull is now used here, even though the IOC standardizes on Mew Gull. The good reason it stays as Common? Not enough people wishing the name to change to the IOC standard.......doesn't sound like a good reason to me.......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
BirdLife has now its own taxonomic check-list which lists several more splits than the IOC list (based on Tobias et al Quantitative criteria for species delimitation, IBIS 2010) and it lists newly described extinct species which are (still) not included in the IOC list. Though Hodgen's waterhen is not a new species, and the common name is mentioned in several books about the extinct New Zealand avifauna (e.g. Worthy or Tennyson) --Melly42 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I hate the idea of 9998 bird articles at common names and 2 at scientific names. Truth be told I'd be happy with them all at scientific names really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm…It's probably true that the scientific common names of these two particular species are more commonly used, because they are only known from fossils. —innotata 19:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Right; probably all articles on fossil birds and proto-birds are at scientific names, like articles on all fossil mammals, reptiles, fish, whatever.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In case of the Bermuda flicker, yes (as it was described as new species in 2012 but even Olson used the common name in its scientific description, the same is for the Bermuda Hawk, the Bermuda saw-whet owl or the Bermuda Towhee). According Tribonyx hodgenorum we had several common names and scientific names, e.g. Rallus hodgeni, Gallinula hodgeni, Gallinula hodgenorum, and Tribonyx hodgenorum and common names are Hodgen's rail, Hodgen's moorhen, Hodgen's waterhen, Hodgens' waterhen or New Zealand Flightless Gallinule. As the epithet is referred to the Hodgen brothers (who owned the Pyramid Valley swamp) and not to a single person the correct spelling should be Hodgens' --Melly42 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Most other articles about subfossil birds use "common" names (as in not their scientific names). Not sure why these should be different. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the same. Best example are the moas, see also recent literature like The Lost World of the Moa (Worthy & Holdaway), New Zealand's Extinct Birds (Gill & Martinson), Extinct Birds of New Zealand (Tennyson & Martinson), Extinct Birds (Hume & Walters), Holocene Extinctions (Turvey), Extinction & Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds (Steadman) where you can find all the common names of extinct birds that are only known by subfossil remains --Melly42 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
It is slowly going silent in this discussion without a consensus. So what are you going to do: Will you move these articles or will it all remain unaffected? And if you will do the latter. What will we do with similar bird taxa which still have no article? Should they created with the scientific name with the common name as redirect? (similar to many rodent articles) --Melly42 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
These are fossil species, and have no common names in any meaningful sense, certainly not under WP:COMMON. IOC or whoever can made up vernacular names for them (why? are they going to do that with all the dinosaurs, too?), but WP hasn't any reason to use those names.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It is perhaps worth pointing out that the researchers who described these species also suggested the common names; it was not the IOC. And no, I don't think the IOC is planning to "do that with all the dinosaurs too". :) MeegsC (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoever. It's not conventional to use vernacular names for fossil species, and it's unlikely they'd ever be used much in paleontology generally, only in a small corner of ornithology, and thus never become the WP:COMMONNAME. I wasn't making an anti-IOC poitn, I was making the point that we don't have to care what some organization (or some researcher, or whoever) prefers or advocates or did off-the-cuff; it's now how we decided to title and write articles. All our fossil fauna articles are at scientific names, and that's conventional not just in scientific literature but even in every-day mainstream reporting about them (e.g. major fossil find reported in local newspaper), so there's neither an internal nor external rationale for moving two of these articles to vernacular names.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
While the "vernacular names" may ahve been suggested, it takes looking at the usage in the literature to determine what name fills the outlines of wp:common best. With rare exceptions the binomial or trimonial is the more commonly used in writings about extinct taxa. Dinosaurs are a great example of the fact that binomials are NOT scary to the public unless they are made to be. I would be against moving of the extinct species simply due to the suggestion of a "vernaular" for it.--Kevmin § 02:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If we can determine that a name is are more commonly used, we use it. Usually, that should be all we need to ask. @SMcCandlish: Errrr… some vernacular names for fossil species definitely are used, so they can fairly be called common names; as has been mentioned a few times before, these names were suggested by researchers in publications about them. Indeed, the vernacular names for the moa-nalo species (known only from fossils/subfossils; the name of the group is a neologism, because there was no native Hawaiian memory of these birds) seem to be more commonly used than the scientific names, and the Wikipedia articles on them currently are under the vernacular names. —innotata 05:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay @Kevmin: and @Innotata:, which literature do you suggest we check? And how? I've read elsewhere that "google searches" are not appropriate for determining usage, so what do you suggest? MeegsC (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: "some vernacular names for fossil species definitely are used" that may be true... but are they used more often than the scientific names are? The key to WP:COMMONNAME is the comparative frequency of useage. If a scientific name is used more often than a vernacular name... then the scientific name is actually the COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As an example of where common names are mainly used for subfossil birds in the recent literature, the entire extinct Mascarene bird fauna would be a good example. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I also ask what Blueboar asked, since I was beaten to it. :-) Also, I would probably bet money that they're only "more commonly used than the scientific names" in ornithological publications, and that the neologistic vernacular is disused in broader paleontology, which is a more appropriate scope to consider. For subfossil vs. fossil cases, the obvious consistency/sanity case for Wikipedia is to treat genera/species/subspecies known only from the subfossil record as if fossil, but those that survived long enough to have known, historical native names and/or to be given Western vernacular names (e.g the dodo and the kiwi) to be at native/vernacular article title (the most common per WP:COMMONNAME, whether that agrees with IOC or not).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
"Broader paleontology" does not exist, there are palaeontologists who specialise in extinct birds, and these are divided into two distinct groups, "recent extinctions, and "prehistoric" ones. The latter group is quite broad, and common names are used for many of the species that went extinct during the Holocene. FunkMonk (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Another good example is the Chatham kaka. It has a common name but it has no scientific name yet (we have to be somewhat patient as the scientific description will be finally published in late August) --Melly42 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I just did a few literature searches — using various elements of Google, since no one has suggested any other way of looking. If I search the term Tribonyx hodgenorum, I get 139 total hits (excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites): 2 if I restrict it to (non-Wikipedia) books only, 1 if I do a Google Scholar search. If I search the term "Hodgen's waterhen", I get a total of 625 hits (excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites), 7 using the (non-Wikipedia) book search and 4 using the scholar search (2 more without the apostrophe). If we're serious about WP:COMMONNAME, then perhaps this article does belong at Hodgen's waterhen after all. Or is there some other literature search that should be done? MeegsC (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
A literature check: Ron Scarlett (1955, scientific description): Rallus hodgeni, W. R. B Oliver: New Zealand Birds (1955): New Zealand Gallinule (Pyramidia hodgeni), S. Dillon Ripley (1977): Rails of the World: Gallinulla hodgeni, Brian Gill & Paul Martinson: New Zealand's Extinct Birds (1992): Hodgen's waterhen, Extinct Birds of New Zealand (Tennyson & Martinson, 2006): Hodgens' waterhen, Extinct Birds (Hume & Walters, 2012): New Zealand Flightless Gallinule, Holocene Extinctions (Turvey, 2009): Hodgen's waterhen, Extinction & Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds (Steadman, 2006): Hodgen's moorhen, The Lost World of the Moa (Worthy & Holdaway, 2003): Hodgens' waterhen, HBW & Birdlife Illustrated Check-list (Collar & Del Hoyo, 2014): Hodgens's waterhen (IUCN Red List: Hodgen's waterhen). Other check-lists like IOC, ebirds/Clements or H&M didn't list this taxon at all. -Melly42 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Melly42:, did any of these references list the species in more than one way (i.e. scientific name and vernacular name)? Or were they all either/or? MeegsC (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
As I have written above there were various scientific names for this rail. Until recently the scientific names were Gallinula hodgeni or Gallinula hodgenorum (the latter is correct as this bird was named for two people). After Christides & Boles (2008) split Tribonyx from Gallinula the correct combination is now Tribonyx (see also the other native-hens which are in the genus). Apart from the first two references all other references list the vernacular and scientific name --Melly42 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
A case where the experts can't agree on taxonomy would perhaps be a case for using a vernacular name here for a fossil species, but perhaps the only one, aside from cases where not even a tentative binomial or trinomial has been published yet. In such a case as the latter, it calls into question whether there should be a WP article at all, since it may well turn out that the specimen ends up classified as being of an existing species; such false alarms are rather frequent. Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#NEWS and perhaps even WP:FRINGE, it isn't WP's job to "report on" bleeding-edge paleontological finds and theories that are tentative and for which there isn't yet any consensus in the external primary source literature yet on even what it is they've found. Such topics are arguably categorically non-encyclopedic, unless something external to the find itself is notable, such as controversy surrounding it. One such case is Flores man; the classification Homo floresiensis is tentative and disputed. However, note that once we did determine it was notable enough to have an article here, it was put at the binomial, despite any doubts surrounding that name. That's a precedent that strongly suggests that if an unclassified fossil or subfossil of any kind, including a bird, has a describer-invented vernacular name, and one or more tentative binomials or trinomials, we should use the best-accepted scientific name for it, not the vernacular one. A view that always put WP:COMMONNAME above all the other WP:CRITERIA no matter what, might actually put that article at Hobbit (hominid), because of how many mainstream but non-peer-reviewed sources (TV news, newspapers, etc.) used "Hobbit" to refer to them, only mentioning the binomial in passing if at all. It's a common sense matter, really.

If we're not doing that with H. floresiensis we shouldn't do it with Tribonyx hodgenorum or whatever (redir from its other, Gallinula, names). The Google searching, above, about that one produces misleading results, because it just pits one of multiple binomials against the vernacular, and Melly42's question is also important - how many of those sources gave both a vernacular and a binomial - while suggesting others, like were there other vernaculars (e.g. Hodgens' waterhen, with the apostrophe in the right place, or New Zealand flightless gallinule), and did any of them clearly prefer a binomial and only mention the vernacular parenthetically (or vice versa), and so on. Given that COMMONNAME is not 100% of the time the deciding factor, and we have a clear standard of using scientific not vernacular names for species only known from paleontology, there's no clear rationale to diverge from that here (not "because birds" as teh interwebs say lately, and not because of anything else). PS: It would also be a bad idea to use an incorrect name like "Hodgen's waterhen" ('s, not s') just because some "reliable" sources also get this wrong.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Many subfossil bird species from Hawaii or from the Pacific have vernacular names (see e.g. Extinct Birds by Hume & Walters, Hawaiian Honeycreepers by Pratt or Extinction & Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds (Steadman, 2006) and others got there vernacular names even before the official Scientific description (e.g. New Caledonia snipe (2013) or the Chatham kaka (2014)) but in many of these cases the vernacular names are also proposed in the Scientific description --Melly42 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
My ideal I suppose is that very recently (post-1600) extinct birds would have a common name while older things are scientific...but I don't know how many creatures comply with this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
well the IUCN gave the 16th century (post-1500) for recently extinct species. But your idea will be mean that the lemmas of all pre-1500 extinctions (e.g. all moa species or the Asiatic ostrich or the Bennu heron) must be created with the Scientific name. I would propose to give vernacular names for all Holocene extinct bird species (i.e. 9000 BC to now) when they are mentioned in recent literature --Melly42 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah happy to go whole holocene too, didn't ask as I thought it was too ambitious..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation of common names[edit]

It is some three months since I stopped editing over the issue of capitalisation of common names. I don't intend to start editing again but I wish to make some observations.

I own a very large collection of print reference books on birds, insects and plants. The only wildlife references I own that do not capitalise common names are some (but not all) of my mammal books. The major bird works HBW and BWP use caps as does A Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names (Jobling, OUP 91), Oxford Dictionary of British Bird Names (Lockwood, OUP 93), everything from publiishers Helm, Poyser, Collins and more.

WP is supposed to reflect secondary sources, not lead. By not capitalising the common names of birds (or insects or flowers), WP is misleading the reader. The seasoned naturalist knows that bird names should take caps but the busy student or journalist might quickly Google, for example, "Golden Eagle" and will be presented with the WP text "The golden eagle is ...". This is incorrect but will be reproduced in countless essays and articles until it becomes the norm. People won't bother to check because they will have absorbed the incorrect WP style and assumed it is correct.

WP should not be leading a change in style. It should be reflecting the secondary sources.

I doubt if anything can be done about this but I thought I should register my concern.

Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chuunen Baka:, the problem is that most generalist publications (including newspapers, encyclopedias, etc.) and some specialist publications (including the RSPB magazine, some zoology journals, etc.) use lower case. It's not really a matter of one way or other being "correct" (though we birders are certainly more used to uppercase names and the MOS boffins are more used to lowercase), it's just a matter of style. And the "lazy journalist" you refer to would be the one using uppercase names, as all the leading newspaper style manuals call for lowercase names. I was a journalist for many years, and always found it hard (and weird) to type animal names in lowercase, as we do now in Wikipedia. But we can all certainly adapt to whichever style is "acceptable" to the community. We just have to decide which is more important — getting the information out there, or standing on our principles. And each of us will have to make our own choice as to what we're willing to put up with. MeegsC (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@MeegsC:. It could be considered just a matter of style but it would be as wrong as writing people's names without leading caps. The RSPB's Nature's Home is little more than a comic full of anthropomorphic animals; newspapers have traditionally been caps-averse; and some zoology journals go with the perverse convention on mammal names. It remains the fact that the common names of birds, plants and insects should have leading caps. The major literature fully supports that and WP is getting it wrong and will, undoubtedly, influence coming English-reading generations to also get it wrong.
Let me give the example of Aeshna where I carefully collated and cited common names where they exist, each with a cite. In each cite they have leading caps. Then someone comes along an down-cases them all. That is wrong. Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 08:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Chuunen Baka: Don't get me wrong; I too would prefer to see capitalized species names, because that's what I'm used to and because I think it makes things much clearer. But it is only a style issue. It's only well-established style that says it's wrong to lowercase people's names. That's why intentionally lowercased names (e.e. cummings, k.d. lang, etc.) are so eye-catching. Unfortunately, the heavy-handed diktat that led to the downcasing of bird names has emphasized style over content, and that's what I have a bigger issue with. When good contributors drop out because of the amount of vitriol leveled against them, it becomes an issue far more serious than style. MeegsC (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
And even I am uneven in uppercasing. Would you ever write "I took my Dog for a walk" or "Sorry I made a mistake, but I'm only Human"? I certainly wouldn't!  :P MeegsC (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Chuunen Baka: Yes, the whole way it went down was pretty galling, and at the end of the day each person has to weigh up how they feel about contributing. Overall, I am annoyed but have accepted it for what it is and moved on from it as I still think there is a benefit in what we do here. and enjoy it most of the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've said it elsewhere, so I might as well say it here too: that discussion should probably be re-opened. It was completely dominated by a sockpuppet and one over-vociferous editor, and was an absolute travesty of what community discussion should be. That it directly led to the departure of three valuable editors is just icing on the cake. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:, personally, I wouldn't recommend reopening this issue any time soon. Many of us are tired of trying to defend our side, and personally, I'd rather be doing the constructive work of improving articles than raising my blood pressure dealing with the astoundingly hostile reception we seem to get any time we suggest capitalization might actually be appropriate. Any new discussion will bring all the same players back to the argument, so what's the point? Give it a few years. MeegsC (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@MeegsC: so basically it will not be addressed and will never be addressed which is what I assumed. WP natural history articles are irredeemably broken. The only editors who remain will be those who are prepared to tolerate the ugliness and incorrectness of lowercase common names. As I stated in my post, WP will now be driving this as a new convention and, mark my words, soon people will be arguing that lowercase is correct because WP does it that way. Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 09:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I was against the moves, though I don't feel strongly about it, but some of the proponents made at least one good point, which no one really addressed: National Geographic apparently uses lower-case for bird names. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America uses leading caps. Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Their website, however, does not. See the problem? There is no real consistency yet, though the move toward capitalization in literature has grown somewhat in the past few decades. That's why I suggested we give it time! MeegsC (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@MeegsC: But my whole point is that as time goes on, people outside WP will cite WP as an argument for using lower case. WP is setting a bad example and will set a trend. It will not get better and soon it will be unfixable. And since everyone here has admitted defeat, it is a done deal. The reason the bullying MOS gang could force it on this project was because very few bird editors knew how to play their game. That's not going to change either. Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 16:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see a new proposal to use uppercase capitalization of animal names. As far as I am aware, there have been separate proposals for birds, dogs, horses and so on. I think that there should be a more general discussion about capitalization of animal names in general and all the involved WikiProjects can be invited to participate. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The anti caps mob kept going and going until they got the result they wanted. I have no doubt if WP:BIRDS brought it up again we'd be accused of WP:POINT. Sabine's Sunbird (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Consensus can change (see WP:CCC), which is a reason why bird-page editors should make a new proposal to use uppercase. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a list of bird guides that all use uppercase for individual bird species. I haven't found one yet that doesn't capitalize the common names!

  • The Sibley Guide to Birds. Second edition.
  • A Photographic Guide to Birds of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos
  • Kaufman Guide to Birds of North America.
  • The Lorimer Pocketguide to Ontario Birds.
  • Princeton Field Guides. Birds of Peru. and Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania.
  • Field Guide to Birds of Australia.
  • A Photographic Guide to Birds of India.
  • The Birds of Costa Rica. A Field Guide.
  • The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds.
  • The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand. Revised edition.
  • Birds, Mammals, and Reptiles pf the Galapagos Islands.
  • The Birds of Britain and Europe with North Africa and the Middle East.
  • The ROM Field Guide to Birds of Ontario.
  • National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern North America.
  • Peterson Field Guide to Birds of North America. Sixth edition.

Dger (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dger: can you find any non-specialist sources that capitalize bird names? That was the big stumbling block last time — only bird/mammal/herp books capitalize names, while encyclopedias, newspapers and other more generalized sources (including many books and journals) do not. I think, in order to get Wikipedia MOS boffins to agree a capitalization change, we'll have to show that other non-specialist sources do what we suggest. Otherwise, the editors that screamed walls of text at us last time are just going to repeat themselves. And I, for one, don't have the time or patience to go through that again! MeegsC (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@MeegsC: - which is exactly the point. I once thought WP was a worthwhile activity but it has forfeited the right to taken seriously when it comes to natural history articles. That's the reason why I have stopped editing. Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@Chuunen Baka:, fair enough; we each have our breaking point. Personally I feel it's more important to get information about birds out there than to worry about what common name they're listed under or how their names are capitalized, but to each their own! MeegsC (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@MeegsC: I haven't found any online encyclopedias, etc., that capitalize bird names. It is inconsistent that one can cite and source capitalization of bird names from primary sources but instead weaker secondary sources are preferred. Elsewhere in Wikipedia primary sources are the best choices for citations. For example, the formatting of mathematical equations is based on math and physics journal standards – very "specialist" publications. Many butterfly and moth pages are still capitalized but there are some people going around changing them too. Considering some of their names are totally descriptive it helps to capitalize, e.g., Small White, Large Copper, Red-spotted Purple, Yellow Three-spot, Sharp-angled Carpet, etc. Dger (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's not rehash this debate again. Really, it was pretty horrible a few months ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
People are going around down-casing common names because they cannot add any more cited information. Wikipedia is nearly complete. There is very little left to add in the bird articles so all we can argue about is style and taxonomy. The MOS gang rule on the former and the avid splitters rule on the latter. I disagree with both so there is little I can contribute. I'm sorry to have dragged this up again. Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia will never be complete, and right now we only cover a very small fraction of what we could. The majority of articles on extant species are stubs (even some European and North American birds), and then there's higher taxa, fossil species, avian anatomy, ecology, ornithological topics, etc. As far as taxonomy, we ought to discuss all major current viewpoints, and some history too, which will be a lot of work to add. That is why I'm still contributing. I can understand if you don't want to contribute though. Rightly or not, arguing about capitalisation is now beating a dead horse. Anyway, thanks for your contributions, I very much appreciate the photos you've added! (you'll still post on Flickr right?) —innotata 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The only things left to do are to dot the i's, cross the t's, and change the upper case to lower case, and then back again. Lets get all names to lower case and then we can change them all back to upper case. Snowman (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gallicolumba article should be spilt into two articles[edit]

Gallicolumba (Bleeding hearts) and Alopecoenas (Indo-pacific ground doves) are now two distinct genera,


  1. Systematics and biogeography of Indo-Pacific ground-doves Jønsson et al. In Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2011
  2. Robert G. Moyle, Robin Jones, Michael J. Andersen: A reconsideration of Gallicolumba (Aves: Columbidae) relationships using fresh source material reveals pseudogenes, chimeras, and a novel phylogenetic hypothesis. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 66, 3,pages 1060-1066, 2013
  3. IOC, HBW Alive, BirdLife, IUCN as source --Melly42 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

List of birds of Germany[edit]

Im my opion there are some changes in the List of birds of Germany necessary.

E.g. add following species to the list, please: Podilymbus podiceps (A) Niedersachsen Oceanodroma castro (A) Oxyura jamaicensis (I) Egretta thula (A) Niedersachsen Grus canadensis (A) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Calidris subminuta (A) Zenaida macroura (A) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Apus affinis (A) Sachsen, Helgoland Apus pacificus (A) 28-05-2014 Niedersachsen / Mellum Prunella atrogularis (A) Anthus gustavi (A)

Please Chance: Aquila fasciatus to Aquila fasciatus (A) Calidris ruficollis to Calidris ruficollis (A) Larus cachinnans (A) to Larus cachinnans

Species e.g. on the list with question marks are: Accipiter brevipes Chlamydotis undulata Vanellus spinosus Charadrius mongolus Strix nebulosa ... Coracias garrulus (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Video's of birds[edit]

Dear all, I am taking the liberty to refer to the videos of birds from the Netherlands in which more than 500 video's of birds have been added in June this year. Only 18 of these have been used on the English Wikipedia. I was wondering if you have any suggestions how we can stimulate the use of these files. On the Dutch Wikipedia more than 50% of the video's has been used in articles, creating a very rich reading experience adding information about behavior, sounds, habitat, movement, etc. all in one glance. As an audiovisual archive we would love to continue our cooperation with the foundation of Nature footage and together provide more material. The only real incentive that we need is for the material to be used. The meta-data description has been translated into English and the Latin categories have been added (great work by the community!). We appreciate your feedback. Regards. Beeld en Geluid Collecties (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added a couple (for example to Eurasian eagle-owl), but I think many editors only add new media when expanding articles, and even then, many just use what is already in them. So someone would have to systematically go through the videos and add them where they would be appropriate. Also a thing to remember, you can choose what frame to use as a thumbnail if you add |thumbtime=0:00|, if the default image is not interesting enough. By the way, perhaps doesn't help that the file names are in Dutch. Also, the captions of the two videos in this owl category seem to have been swapped:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, this discussion gave me this idea, which would make video thumbnails more useful as illustrations in their own right:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The donation to Commons of the collection of videos is very much appreciated. There are fewer bird editors here following the imposition of lower case bird names. Snowman (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, great idea FunkMonk, totally agree. @Beel en Geluid Collecties: It's probably too late to do it now, but the names being in dutch really don't help me get a quick idea of where to put them on the English wikipedia. Maybe a list (hosted in a sandbox or off-wiki) of the English names of the birds featured would make things be added more quickly. That said, the descriptions all have an English name in them as far as I can tell, so people searching the commons for the bird they are working on's name will likely turn up the appropriate videos, so they may well be slowly integrated into articles over time either way. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it seems this is finally being implemented, so soon we can use vidoes in a much more illustrative way again (including the great Dutch ones): FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Footage of an adult tending to a nest with juveniles
  • Looks better now, see right. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Aging and sexing[edit]

Many wiki bird article include links to a series of excellent articles by Javier Blasco-Zumeta and Gerd-Michael Heinze on aging and sexing. At present these links appear to be broken. The browser is redirected to a new site but not to the file itself. The files exist at a different location. For example:

( is redirected to

( which doesn't exist but the file is available here:

This may be only a temporary problem. (or I may have got confused) Aa77zz (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a temporary problem. There are a couple of hundred of these links: see here. I'll try and fix them before too many are removed as being 'dead'. William Avery (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
All are now changed. I hope this is permanent. Aa77zz (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps next time they will get their redirection correct. Their index page for the PDFs is at and the creator has made one at William Avery (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Indian Ocean kestrels[edit]

is there any good reason why this should be an article? If they're not a distinct clade, it seems arbitrary to have such an article. We don't seem to have equivalent articles. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear what to do, even though the article seems intended to highlight the article that is its only proper reference. Where we have had similar cases, it's usually been possible to redirect or merge. I'm not sure that's the case here. It's encyclopaedic and in tone and has an academic reference, so I don't think it can be deleted, and it would be certain to survive an AFD. The only other option is to merge the content with kestrel, but this editor has got there first and summarised the article content there too, with the same ref. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I can think of Parrots of New Zealand - and also Parrots of New Guinea (which I just found now by typing 'Parrots of...' into the search!), so we do have some articles like that. Are the Indian Ocean kestrels considered to be a particularly notable subset of kestrels? The article would suggest that they have adapted to a different diet... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me though, an endless amount of articles could theoretically be made about any constellation of birds and geographic regions. FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with most comments here, can redirect to kestrel. Since it is already covered there, not much work. Can be a different case for something like Galapagos finches. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Aren't the finches a clade, though? FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if they weren't, "Galapagos finches" is a notable constellation of birds. Shyamal (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as you are aware (aimed at everyone), are the Indian Ocean kestrels ever considered as such too? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of birds of Yuma, Arizona[edit]

I've nominated List of birds of Yuma, Arizona for deletion. Feel free to comment. There are no municipalities list for regional bird lists. There is an article available for List of birds of Yuma County, Arizona. Although I think this too in not notable, there is precedent for other county bird lists, so I let that be.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about the AFD? I can see a "merge" tag, but that's all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking an AfD will not be needed anyway (assuming there isn't one ongoing despite the tag) we can always redirect to List of birds of Yuma County, Arizona anyway, even if no content gets merged. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Parrots of New Guinea[edit]

I found Parrots of New Guinea today, which is in a similar vein to Indian Ocean kestrels. Any thoughts on whether this one has merit? As it currently stands, it's not much — and it hasn't substantially changed since 2007, when it was started. Any parrot aficionado want to take it on? MeegsC (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As above, I'd support a merge. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think many of these multiple species pages were created prior to Polbot creating separate pages for just about every bird species, which makes them largely redundant now. There may be the odd exception that is worth keeping. Maias (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)