Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

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 Departments Assessment talk Collaboration talk Featured topics talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Country lists talk Bird articles by size talk Hot articles talk Popular pages talk Task forces Domestic pigeon task force talk Poultry task force talk

External links to Arkive

A number of external links have appeared in a template to Arkive. See this addition to the Indian Pond Heron page. These do not seem to me to be consistent with WP:EL as such information on Arkive would be expected to be found on the Wikipedia when pages are developed. I think these external links are excessive, they take viewers away from, the Wikipedia, and I think they should be removed. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am mostly in agreement, although I think these links would be acceptable if Wikipedia doesn't already contain a suitable image of the animal. Adding hundreds of external links is not the proper way to facilitate outreach to academic institutions. Especially when the media is damaged by a huge watermark of the site's name. This being said, I don't think this page is the proper place to bring up the issue. Have you considered discussing this with User:Pigsonthewing, who is in charge of this GLAM project? ThemFromSpace 11:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct page for discussion for external links put on bird articles. I would hope that User Pigsonthewing is watching this page following his communications above; nevertheless, I have informed him of this discussion on his talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also informed a member of WP:Spam to advance the discussion here and hopefully to address the external links added to non-bird pages and other language Wikipedieas. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We do not avoid linking to sites because we fear "they take viewers away from, the Wikipedia". The purpose of the links is not to link to "information" but - as made clear in the linking template - media which Wikipedia does not have. that seems to me to be entirely consistent with WP:EL, especially given ARKive's good standing. While I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, I am not "in charge" of the project; it's an initiative of Wikimedia UK, who have tasked me, in that role, with adding such links, as you can read on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the non-selective addition of external links directed to ARKive. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which states "Links normally to be avoided: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think that this implies that ARKive should not be external links, and that this is for articles with or without a current image. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ARKive provides "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What resource is that? Snowman (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its unrivalled collection of media. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Snowmanradio, it doesn't provide a unique resource. The media should already be on the Wikipedia articles (which is why I'd be ok with a link there if the article has no photos), and the statistics should be incorporated into the article. ARKive is appropriate as a reference, but not as an EL. ThemFromSpace 12:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ARKive has video as well as images. Can you point me to our video of the Indian Pond Heron, for example? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The presence of a video on ARKive is irrelevant to the merits of ARKive as an external link. When the wiki content is more developed (on Commons and the language wikis), then a video could be shown on the wiki article and several could be available on commons. It would be preferable if you would upload the video of the Pond Heron to commons. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting suggestion, but I have no intention of breaching others' copyright. Your claim that "The presence of a video on ARKive is irrelevant to the merits of ARKive as an external link" is utterly false. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't link to every external site that has a photograph or video of an animal, if we did our EL sections would be a mile long. Unless the photographs or videos are particularly good, and we don't have anything comparable in the article or on commons, we don't link there. This site has large watermarks over all of its photos. That is reason enough to avoid linking there, as there are other sites that offer high-quality photos of animals without the watermark. ThemFromSpace 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Off course, I think that a conscientious Wikipedian would ask the copyright holder of a photograph or video to change the copyright to a Commons friendly copyright. I have wrote to copyright holders scores of times and frequently following my request a kind author has changed the licence, so that I can show an his work on the wiki. The presence of videos on ARKive does not give ARKive a unique resource that could not be found on a Wiki article or Commons. I believe indiscriminate adding external links to directed to ARKive is against the wiki guidelines, and I have not yet seen an external link to ARKive that I would consider an exception and worthy to be kept. Is being Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive a Conflict of Interest? Do any editors have any other associations with ARKive? Snowman (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the ARKive external link from the Hyacinth Macaw page. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my 2p. I'm one of the board members of Wikimedia UK and am involved in various outreach projects (but not particularly this one). Obviously it is a community decision whether any particular external link meets WP:EL and the fact that a particular link is added as part of an outreach project doesn't by itself mean it should be included or excluded.

However, I do think that quite a lot of ARKive pages have enough material on to be valid external links. If you look at Hyancinth Macaw for instance there are 5 high-quality videos taken from the BBC Natural History Unit which are a useful supplement to the article. It wouldn't be easy for a volunteer to produce free media to replicate those videos and I think ti's exactly the kind of thing we should be linking to. I have never taken the view that we should ban external links that contain material that could theoretically be made free and I don't believe that's the right interpretation of our policies.

Of course in an ideal world for Wikimedians, people like ARKive and the BBC would simply release all their media under free licenses. However, that is not where we are at the minute. Collaborations like this one are an important step in persuading institutions that Wikipedia isn't scary, they can work with us constructively, and we aren't simply interested in grabbing media files. Effective partnerships with institutions will result in a much bigger payoff for the Wikimedia movement in the long run...

Regards, The Land (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is simply that we should see if the ARKive article has anything worthwhile: most probably do (as at House Sparrow and Iago Sparrow), some probably not. If there are places where Wikipedia's media compare well to ARKive's, there likely shouldn't be a link; texts reviewed by species experts on ARKive should be valuable links. —innotata 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A similar issue came up recently at WikiProject Plants. The linked content (photos and drawings in that case) added a great deal of reliable information for someone interested in learning more about that plant. We should put the reader's interests first. If a particular ARKive article helps the reader, then a link should be added, determined on a case-by-case basis, like Innotata suggests. First Light (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets be clear what the tests for EL are. The Wiki is not a links farm. The Wiki is not a substitute of a search engine. The test we have been discussing is: Does the external link provide a resource that is not provided on an article if it is a well developed article? If we added external links to sites that provided a bit more information that the current article then we would end up with a links farm on every stub. Snowman (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who looked at the Hyacinth Macaw on Commons would know that Commons includes 30 images of the bird's head, plus 95 images of the bird showing more than its head, plus 3 videos. It is clearly nonsense that ARKive is a resource of media for this species that is not provided by Commons or the Wiki. The material on the Wiki and Commons is creative commons and I see absolutely no reason for the Wiki to give external links to images with restrictive copyright licences and large watermarks. Snowman (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is genuine extra value, free content, or no free alternative, we should discourage links that just add more of the same and link to commercial or non-free sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

I note that my edit removing the external link to ARKive has been reverted by User Pigsonthewing; see his edit. At the present time ARKive for the this species says "Authentication: This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible. If you are able to help please contact: arkive@wildscreen.org.uk". See the references for Hyacinth Macaw on ARKive. Are we having external links imposed on bird pages? Snowman (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a policy basis for refusing a link to a site because it has non-free content. I agree with First Light that the reader's interests should come first: non-free or watermarked content may well be in the reader's interest in learning about a given topic. WP:EL mentions as suitable sites that contain encyclopedic content that cannot be integrated into the article because of copyright concerns. The media on ARKive pages obviously fit this requirement: calling for it to be illegally copied does not change that situation. Snowman, you write above "I see absolutely no reason for the Wiki to give external links to images with restrictive copyright licences and large watermarks." - you're entitled to your own opinion, but until you can get it into policy that these things are forbidden, it's just your opinion. "A conscientious Wikipedian would ask the copyright holder of a photograph or video to change the copyright to a Commons friendly copyright" - of course these negotiations are going on. This project is ARKive taking their first steps in free content. I'm one of the WMUK Directors who negotiated the arrangement. To suggest that I or Andy have a conflict of interest is absurd: many Wikimedians are doing work with partner organisations and this is increasingly how the community works: you'd have to rid WP and its sister projects of an awful lot of high-quality stuff if that were against policy. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is a more diplomatic way to say that and in such a way that uses quotations in a better context. It is clear from the above discussion that no one was "calling for anything to be illegally copied ...". The thread of the discussion is that I was suggesting that authors of images could be asked if they would change copyrights to Commons friendly licences, and this is what I had intended to imply when I made my initial comment not being aware that people would readily misinterpret it. I am aware that external links to copyrighted media files are valid in some circumstances, but I maintain that such links are not in line with wiki guidelines when Commons has an equivalent range of "free" images on a particular topic. I think that it was perfectly legitimate to ask about COI, and I was doing this without suggesting that there was any COI. WP:LINKSTOAVOID seems clear to me. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are good videos of the Hyacinth Macaw on Internet bird collection - a long standing external link on the Hyacinth Macaw page. These images do not have large watermarks. An external link to ARKive has recently been added back to the Hyacinth Macaw article, where the videos have been somewhat spoilt owning to a large "ARKive" watermark. I do not know why ARKive would want to watermark the BBC videos that they have like that. Also Commons has a variety of images and three vidoes, so I propose removing the external link to ARKive. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was reverted by Andy on Coco de Mer. To me this is a textbook case of a link that offers no extensive coverage beyond what we offer on our site. Andy, for now I'm asking if you could stop linking to this site until we get a consensus on whether they are appropriate. I think the outreach project will run just as fine without the external links. ThemFromSpace 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW I have posted a notification of this discussion on WP:ELN ThemFromSpace 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-think: some of the videos made by the BBC on ARKive are excellent and have sound, so I think these could be regarded as a high quality video resource, but not the only resource of this type. I think that this is in contrast to the ARKive text, which is almost certainly not a resource that the Wiki would not have on developed articles. I have looked at more of the animal BBC videos on ARKive and have began to appreciate their quality. I do not know whey these videos have an ARKive watermark and not a BBC watermark, and I wonder why BBC do not publish them all on the BBC website and avoid the ARKive watermark. I expect the BBC use some of the finest photographic equipment available. In the case of the Hyacinth Macaw, I think that the videos without watermarks on the Internet Bird Collection are also excellent and I prefer these to the ARKive videos. I have added an external link on the Great Northern Loon Wiki article to link the only ARKive video of this species. I have linked the ARKive video page directly. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ARKive Template

A template in the format in a box has appeared on some bird articles. It says:

"This article incorporates material from the ARKive fact-file "Hyacinth Macaw", which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but not under the GFDL." Snowman (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles also have an external link to ARKive, and references that end "... via ARKive". I think that ARKive has become too prominent in some articles. See Hyacinth Macaw on 26 July 2011, where ARKive is mentioned multiple times. It seems to me that plastering articles with ARKive templates and wikilinks is not restrained at Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. When you originally raised the ARKive issue, I felt you were over-reacting, but if we now have prominent mentions in articles of special licences for content from certain categories of contrbutor, it feels like we're crossing a line. SP-KP (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed a ARKive box on the talk page written there as a template; see Talk:Hyacinth Macaw on 27 July 2011. The talk page box says: Snowman (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"This article uses text donated by Wildscreen from their ARKive project, under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. For details, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive."

I have got a clear message here, and I am complaining about the high visibility of ARKive on some bird articles and also talk pages. These ARKive notices appear to have been added to bird pages without prior negotiation on this page. Why have external links to ARKive usually been put at the top of the external links list (below the signpost boxes to Wikispecies and Commons)? Why should high visibility ARKive boxes and other ARKive material be imposed on bird pages? Snowman (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns too - one comparison is with articles improved on the GLAM collaboration with he British Museum - so see Talk:Hoxne_Hoard. However, what happens if we (say) buff and copyedit Hyacinth Macaw to GA or FA? And the verbatim text disappears? As well, what I find is some webpages like this one and IUCN have secondary sources which I go and investigate and often read and insert a fuller account from that source. Do we then remove the box as the text is gone? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems particularly nuts considering we already reference BirdLife International and the IUCN Red List on many (most?) articles — and now (looking at Hyacinth Macaw anyway) they will apparently say "via ARKive" after those references. Huh? Why not link directly to the references themselves? MeegsC | Talk 01:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've deleted the Arkive spamlink from Hyacinth Macaw. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think those templates are over-the-top and unneccesary. First Light (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's probably best to have this discussion all in one place: Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive is the page for discussing the collaboration project.
• MeegsC: Snowman has explained the answer in terms of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. When editors has not checked the reference themselves but are copying the citation from ARKive, they need to reflect that. It also means that we can identify which parts of an article have been improved as part of the collaboration project. If an article evolves so there are no more "via ARKive.org" references, then that would suggest we could remove the template.
• Jimfbleak: There's scope for legitimate debate over how to attribute ARKive, and to recognise the difference between the legal status of that text and Wikipedia's licence. The template is one constructive way to do that. By all means weigh in on whether the template is needed, but treating it as "spam" is incorrect.
• First Light: there is ample precedent for this sort of thing where we are using shared text. See Category:Attribution_templates. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, that was kind of my point! Long before the ARKive project became involved with the Hyacinth Macaw page, there were already links to the BirdLife International and IUCN pages. Now those links both say "via ARKive". Why? MeegsC | Talk 02:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MeegsC, you appear to be mis-remembering what really happened. But as Martin P says, Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive is the page for discussing the collaboration project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Andy, I'm not. Here's a link from before you, or anyone else from ARKive, starting editing this article. Note that both BirdLife International's species information page and the IUCN Red List page are already referenced. As I asked before, I'm just wondering why both now say "via ARKive", as they were clearly part of this article before!!

Your statement is incorrect; no such change was made. See, on the article as it currently stands, references 1 & 4. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that there is a lot of experience about using attribution templates, and some of the guidelines for using them are at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution. It seems that these templates are optional, and that all the necessary attribution can be satisfactorily achieved with adequate in-line citations. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected your mistaken conclusions on this matter on the project talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case: I think that the ARKive attribution template that has been placed on Hyacinth Macaw is optional, since the in-line references attributing ARKive will suffice. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons

Please list comparisons; comments welcome: Snowman (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• A comparison of using Creative Commons text from elsewhere is when the content from another language wiki is used. I used the Dutch Wiki (translating with some difficulty) when I started the en wiki article for Vogelpark Avifauna and followed the instructions about how to tag the new en Wiki article. The only tag that I required was on the talk page; see Talk:Vogelpark Avifauna, where there is a non-promotional information box. I looked at the references used to make the Dutch page and made sure that they were valid for the en wiki article. Should I have done anything else to document the referencing? It was some time ago when I made the Vogelpark Avifauna article, so I hope I have recalled these details correctly. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• In anatomy pages a PD old version of Grey's Anatomy has often been used to start the articles. The template {{Gray's}} is shown on the article (see Ulnar collateral ligament of wrist joint), which says:

" This article incorporates text in the public domain from the 20th edition of Gray's Anatomy (1918)

". Snowman (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As seen on Skull on 2004, a disclaimer was written directly on anatomy articles:

"This article is based on an entry from the 1918 edition of Gray's Anatomy, which is in the public domain. As such, some of the information contained herein may be outdated. Please edit the article if this is the case, and feel free to remove this notice when it is no longer relevant.

I note that a disclaimer of this sort does not appear in the current "Skull" article. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Anatomy templates (or disclaimer messages) have been put on anatomy pages when anatomy articles were started based on a PD version of Grey's Anatomy, and it is actively encouraged to update anatomy articles using modern sources and remove the Grey's disclaimer when the article has been sourced from elsewhere. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, ARKive is not used to create bird articles, often being used in conjunction with a Wiki article of a well known animal. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Begging pardon if this has been mentioned already, or if I'm missing something obvious: is there anything stopping editors from rewriting the ARKive material in their own words, and simply using a footnote to reference the facts? Much like other reliable sources are referenced? Without the template? That would be a win/win—article is improved, ARKive gets some credit through a footnote. No template in needed. First Light (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry to butt in, but I'm addressing this question rather than the discussion below). You're very welcome, in fact encouraged, to do this. It would indeed be a win all round. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit history of the Hyacinth Macaw shows that three regular editors of bird pages have deleted the {{ARKive attribution}} template (probably with the view that the normal style of in-line referencing and/or adequate edit summaries will suffice), and I note that each of these three edits has been undone by a participant of the ARKive project. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this question is probably at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/ARKive. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is false; please retract it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If I have made an accidental mistake, please explain what it is and I will have a look at it. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is false; please retract it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for accidentally putting the wrong number of undone edits. My error was over the first undone edit which was to revert an external link and not the ARKive attribute template. There were only two edits that put back the attribution template. To retract the accidental error I have put a strike though the whole of the edit containing the accidental mistake. I have written a corrected comment below. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit history of the Hyacinth Macaw shows that two regular editors of bird pages have deleted the {{ARKive attribution}} template and I note that each of these two edits has been undone by a participant of the ARKive project; see this edit and this edit. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes; the first edit I reverted falsely described the link as spam. I reverted the second, whose edit summary falsely claimed "We don't have attribution like this elsewhere", after discussion at the GLAM/ARKive project page revealed precedent for such an attribution text, in the existence of several other such templates in Category:Attribution templates. As a participant in that debate, you should be aware of this. I also gave my reasoning in my edit summaries. I am unclear what is significant about editors being "regular editors of bird pages", even though I am one myself; please can you explain? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact. Nevertheless, I think that I could have written it by saying "two editors" or "two administrators". Snowman (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that attribution templates have been used for a long time. I have found something that sounds useful at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution. This suggests that attribution templates are optional. It suggests that they are more useful when there is a lot CC text from a source website. It seems that an in-line {{citation-attribution}} template can suffice especially when there is a small portion of text added to a Wiki article form a CC source. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected your mistaken conclusions on this matter on the project talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case: I think that the ARKive attribution template that has been placed on Hyacinth Macaw is optional, since the in-line references attributing ARKive will suffice. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

AOU Changes

This years AOU Changes have been released. Looks like the new world warblers have had another major restructure, the Common Moorhen/Common Gallinule (Eurasia vs. NA), the Kentish/Snowy Plover, and the Yellow-throated/Bahama Warbler have been split, among major changes. I've been starting to synch up the IOC/AOU lists to make appropriate changes. I'll use the AOU list to change the regional lists as appropriate, but species accounts and taxonomic lists I'll leave to the IOC lists. In that light, for example, I've created a new Bahama Warbler page, but have left it in Dendroica, since the IOC has yet to recognize the genus the AOU has inserted it into (Setophaga). I'll change the regional lists, but I'll wait on the species accounts and tax lists. My next venture is to split the Common Moorhen/Common Gallinule. Any guidance will be helpful........Any other comments will help as I make changes over the next couple weeks.........Pvmoutside (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good-bye, Dendroica!

Since the IOC isn't our authority for anything but English names, I'd give a choice of genus names in the species accounts, e.g., "Dendroica or Setophaga", and likewise for Wilsonia. Unless you or someone else here has good reason to believe that the consensus will come out (or better, has come out) one way or the other.

In my opinion, the taxon accounts are a higher priority than the regional lists. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The IOC generally falls in line with the AOU indications. They are just slow on the uptake. I would probably wait until they either align their taxonomy on the update pages, or until the SACC gives its opinion on this, which, if they have not already and I have not looked, they certainly will since many of the species involved are seasonal migrants into South America. V. http://jboyd.net/Taxo/List30.html#parulidae for a discussion of the literature being considered and its implications though some now mooted given the AOU positions. Steve Pryor (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (126)

• Bird 1260. File:Unidentified bird -Singapore -nest-8a.jpg | Chicks in a nest probably in Singapore. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Good luck! I can think of three or four possibles, however, to hazard a guess among those is simply an exercise in conjecture. In this particular case, given the absolute paucity of descriptive information for fledgelings of most passeriformes, you would need somebody with special knowledge, and that had probably seen such a nest during field work.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The nest is quite distinctive. Zosterops most likely palpebrosus. Shyamal (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have written the genus in the file description on commons. List of birds of Singapore has several of this genus. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1261. File:Corvus splendens -Kerala, India-8.jpg | House Crow to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. Shyamal (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1262. File:Laniarius atrococcineus.jpg | Crimson-breasted Gonolek. File found on Wiki, where infobox caption says it is an adult male and text says no sexual dimorphism. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

HBW confirms text, sexes are alike, so the caption is wrong. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: caption amended. Snowman (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the Harris & Franklin in case they had more detail. They offer the laconic "sexes are similar".Steve Pryor (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1263. File:Unidentified bird -Rietvlei Nature Reserve, South Africa-8.jpg | Several prinia and warblers look similar. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In this locale (near Pretoria)you really only have to deal with three confusion species. The ranging Cisticola save C. aberrans are all streaky-backed - so forget them. C. aberrans itself does not have the russet feather edges in the wings, and it does have a rufous crown - so forget him. This leaves the other ranging Prinia, P. flavicans, however, flavicans does not have these russet feather edges and it does not have this russet rump where if we could see the crissum of this bird we would see that it is also russet (and that of flavicans is whitish). Prinia subflava. The ranging race here should be pondoensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is it a juvenile. Looks like this juvenile: File:Juvenile_Tawny-flanked_Prinia_(Prinia_subflava).jpg. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, not too sure that the additional photo is of a juvenile. In any case, trying to sex these birds is extremely difficult. The same might be said of immatures that no longer have a juvenile flange. The book on the adult alternate nominate male has it that the supercilium is broad and creamy colored, and the russet color more extensive on the crissum and lower flanks, the tail shorter than the non-breeding male, and the bill is black including the bill base. The adult female is pretty much identical to the non-breeding male (i.e. duller, less flank rufousness, and black bill but with a light-colored lower mandibular base). The immature bird is supposed to resemble the basic adults but with a light yellowish wash ventrally. However, race pondoensis is duller than most other races usually, breeding or not. Now, the photo was shot during what is reported to be their breeding season. The bird does not seem to have a yellowish wash ventrally (that would indicate immaturity, however, it must be noted that the species description applies to the nominate race). If we presume that the description of these very subtle differences can be applied also to race pondoensis, then my best guess would be that this is an adult female.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tawny-flanked Prinia moved to File:Prinia subflava -Rietvlei Nature Reserve, South Africa-8.jpg. Anyone can enhance the file description on Commons, if they are certain. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1264. File:Macronyx capensis -South Africa -male-8 (1).jpg | Cape Longclaw. To confirm this is the male. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1265. File:Megascops choliba -Kakegawa Kacho-en, Kakegawa, Shizuoka, Japan-8a.jpg | Owl in captivity in Japan. File on commons has been amended with a different species. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1266. File:Photo123008.jpg parrot. —innotata 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a Corella. Which one is the problem. Without having good vision of the bill conformation it is sheer conjecture.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The same editor created the Long-billed Corella article on the same day, and made edits only to that article and this picture. You can see the tip of quite a long bill just extending past one of the cage bars. But I'd agree with Steve that it's a pretty bad picture for ID purposes. MeegsC | Talk 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

True that, however, though the editor cited may have had special knowledge those viewing this photo are not privy to this information and are called on only for the purpose of vetting a bird photo for what the photo itself furnishes. While I allow that the Little Corella can be safely eliminated on this basis, the same can not be said for the Long-billed Corella, and the Western Corella which are difficult to separate even when you have good photos.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As it doesn't look like it can be identified, I've moved it to Wikimedia Commons with the name File:Unidentified Corella in a cage.jpg. —innotata 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1267. File:Cyanistes teneriffae -Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain-8.jpg | Is this the juvenile. Is it split from Blue Tit? Snowman (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a typical juvenile teneriffae palmensis if accepting the split. As to if it is split, well, it depends on which tax authority one wishes to follow. The HM does not split it. I have read the literature and consider it a good split, but that is just my opinion.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Commons has not got the split, so I have categorised it as a subspecies of the Blue Tit there. I presume that DNA analysis is needed to be certain of this split, as the taxa seem quite similar except for the colour of feathers on the crown. I think that it is the first juvenile of its taxa on Commons. Snowman (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Whoops. Now described as a juvenile on Commons. Snowman (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1268. File:Anthus berthelotii -Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain-8.jpg | Berthelot's Pipit to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, looks like adult Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Selected for the infobox image on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1269. File:Serinus canaria -Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain-8 (1).jpg | A juvenile Canary to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd guess first summer male Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Described as a juvenile and shown on Wiki species page. Anyone can enhance the description, if certain. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

ARKive texts with CC licence

Would it be a good idea to copy all the CC texts from ARKive into subpages of the relevant bird articles? or a sample of them to assist the assessment of ARKive text added to the main Wiki articles. It might also help to track changes on ARKive. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is not much text to copy, so I have copied the text on the Hyacinth Macaw from ARKive the the Hyacinth Macaw talk page. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I expect all the free ARKive texts could be held on Wikisourse. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a Herring Gull eating bats?

i.e. those flying mouse critters - not the sports equipment. Take a look - seems to be real. Just something vaguely interesting I heard about today that I thought you guys might also find vaguely interesting. Clever little carnivore. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty efficient rate of capture! I've seen large gulls pursuing migrating Eastern Red Bats offshore. Presumably, they eat 'em if they can catch 'em! MeegsC | Talk 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It must take a certain internal constitution to swallow living (and presumably struggling) things with teeth and claws alive. That said, years ago I saw a gull bloodlessly regurgitating a crushed coke can that had somehow ended up down there. A gull's crop is truly a marvel of nature. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Years ago in British Birds, there was a fairly gruesome picture of a moribund Bonxie found on a UK beach with a huge growth on its chest; it was presumed by the finders that the tumor was what was killing the bird. But when a vet (I think) did an autopsy following its death, they discovered that the "growth" was actually the beak of a cuttlefish that was chewing its way out. It didn't make it, and neither did the skua. Grim! MeegsC | Talk 13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for "great black backed gull" brings up an image from this page on the first page of results. Scroll about 2/3 of the way down - you'll know it when you see it. Gruesome, huh? I don't think that the gull could've survived that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! That can't feel very good... :P MeegsC | Talk 14:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Naming a Nativehen

A nomenclature discussion of interest to WikiProject Birds is currently underway at Talk:Tasmanian Nativehen. All are welcome to participate! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix

What is the general project opinion about the inclusion of Phoenix (mythology) in our remit? Do we want to include mythical birds as well as real ones? Right now, this article has our banner on its talk page; I would argue that it shouldn't be there... MeegsC | Talk 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - interesting question. I have always thought of the project as having fuzzy borders to its remit and have sometimes had to make arbitrary decisions about whether an article should be so tagged. The 'Legendary birds' category has many more examples. I would tend to be inclusive with Phoenix, but consider it peripheral and not part of the project's core business. Maias (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose - it becomes more important as the article is further improved and (hopefully) gets more out-of-universe discussion on what real bird it might have been based on...so I'd place a template on the talk page. Ditto Roc and others....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How's about some of the articles in Category:Fictional birds (if most of them aren't already included anyway)? I was originally thinking of the bird Pokemon, many of which are based upon real birds (but it seems that most Pokemon don't have their own separate articles any more) - but there's many, many more articles included there that could maybe be semi-relevant. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd go along with Phoenix as a major cultural item and more than just a pokemon character. Now what's its IOC name... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a bird topic that is appropriately included in WP Birds. Some of the images on the Phoenix article reminded me of some birds that put their eggs in the ground in the warm ash around volcanoes, where there is enough heat to incubate them - there is a name for that. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Megapodes incubate their eggs by burying them, but I don't think any birds use volcanic heat specifically, and I don't think incubation explains the story of the phoenix. —innotata 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have heard of one bird species that lives on New Britain in the region of New Guinea that uses hot ashes around a volcano; see Lost Land of the Volcano episode 3. I was trying to identify this bird when I wrote that part of the article. The egg in the TV programme is bit larger than a goose egg. I would like to write the species into the article, if anyone knows it. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"For instance, approximately 53,000 Melanesian megapodes have been estimated to visit a single volcanic site in New Britain." (Referring to birds laying their eggs at geothermal sources. I can give you more information from this book if you like.)

Jones, Darryl; Crome, Frank H. J. (2003), "Megapodes", in Christopher Perrins, ed. (ed.), The Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds, Firefly Books, pp. 192–195, ISBN 1-55297-777-3 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

—JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're going to mention megapodes in the Phoenix article, I'm sure it goes without saying that you have a source speculating on the connection. Or did I misunderstand which article you meant? Also incidentally, the phoenix article needs a great deal of work. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to write the species in Lost Land of the Volcano. Are there any other bird species that also do this on New Briton? I am not writing this species in the Phoenix article. I see that the Melanesian Megapode article is a short stub, so this would be a good candidate for a DYK with the hook about geothermal egg incubation. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I misunderstood which article you were talking about. According to the Avibase checklist for New Britain, the Melanesian Megapode is the only megapode on that island, and megapodes are the only birds that don't incubate with their body heat (see references in Megapode). So it seems no other birds do this on New Britain. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerry, I know what you intend saying and you are right in saying that Megapodes are the only bird group that bury their eggs, totally abandon them thereafter, and allow them to be incubated by non-Megapode heat, be it geothermic, or be it heat-generating biotic processes in decomposition of compost, etc. However, it would not be technically true to say that other bird groups do not avail themselves of non-biotic heat for incubation, e.g., many Anseriformes during the day limit their care to rearranging down feathers exposed to radiant heat, and truly brood during the night. Yes, I know that I am splitting hairs!Steve Pryor (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Robins

Magnificent cluster of Australasian robin DYKs on the front page today. Congrats to Casliber and others involved in expanding them. Maias (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

heh, thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

IOC name of Jackdaw

Anyone have any objections to moving this to the IOC name of Western Jackdaw? Speak now or forever hold yer peace....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

NB: this page lists a few "Eurasian jackdaws" a few "Western Jackdaws" etc. and the Brits who just have "Jackdaw" Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Full support for the move. Maias (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Me, so long as we split the other one out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We do, so perhaps the genus page can become Jackdaw? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Sabine's Sunbird the other one is already split out as Daurian Jackdaw. The new genus Coloeus is an obvious redirect to Jackdaw, although I have not seen any sources call the genus the genus of Jackdaws...but I haven't really looked.Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

IOC name changes

I'm playing around with synching up IOC English names as I have time. Most moves are working well.....however a couple are giving me issues. No big deal right now, as the ones I found so far eliminate dashes. I'm sure they'll be more complicated ones later. So, right now, I'm locked from moving all the Piping-guans to Piping Guan and the Brush-turkeys to Brushturkey. Can someone move these articles, or let me know if this doesn't warrant the time, and I'll move on.

Changing taxonomy using the IOC classification is less clearcut I'm assuming reading the posts. I've been deferring to the North and South American Committees of the AOU, the African Bird Club Checklist, the Birds Australia Checklist and the British Ornithologist's Union Checklist for guidance, as well as the IOC. Since the African Bird Club has indicated their ageement to standardize on the IOC, any objection to splitting the Ostrich into Common Ostrich and Somali Ostrich? I've split them into their own articles.

Also the AOU and the IOC has split the Snowy Plover from the Kentish Plover and the Common Gallinue from the Common Moorhen. I've split the new names out (Snowy Plover, Common Gallinue), but left the original articles intact except for a reference of the AOU split (Kentish Plover, Common Moorhen), until more review committees make their determinations. Let me know if I should approach differently.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A significant misunderstanding and in direct conflict with the information provided in the intro of Common Ostrich, Somali Ostrich and Ostrich: IOC is not and never has been the standard for taxonomy on wikipedia. IOC is our standard for English names. The frontpage defines it clearly (well, I hope it does, since I wrote it) under Taxonomy and references:

"Scientific names and classification are based on evidence rather than a specific list. There is no single authority to rely on; no one list can claim to be the list... The preferred standard for English common bird names is the IOC."

Due to time restraints my participation in this project will be limited (at least for a period) and if others believe we should change so IOC also is our standard for taxonomy, it is a possibility, though one I would warn against. In the case of the ostrich, I believe it is sensible to split it into two, but not because IOC advocates it. Because genetic evidence supports it and reveals a quite deep split (see this, this and this). If you skip the IOC sentence, you could add "The Somali Ostrich has traditionally been treated as a subspecies of the Ostrich, but the former is morphologically and ecologically distinct, and genetic evidence supports its treatment as a separate species" (or something like that + appropriat wiki links). However, I would argue against splitting the Common Ostrich further. This is suggested by the authors of the most recent article and IOC has Southern Ostrich among their candidates. Since members of the northern and southern clade hybridize freely, it would not be an easy split to accept under the biological species concept. As far as I know, similar unrestricted hybridization has not been shown in Somali versus remaining. • Rabo³ • 14:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

On a related issue, I urge everybody to be careful when changing taxonomy since this often require additional changes within existing articles: [1] (plumage + distribution update needed w. split of Colombia) & [2] (not in the Amazon). • Rabo³ • 15:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also reverted this. Please see the taxonomic section, which explains the issue of Roraiman versus Foothill (they're not synonymous, despite the identical scient. name). IOC follows version #2 described in the taxonomic section, but the presently available evidence doesn't support this (despite being based on the few samples available to Robbins in 2001, his SACC proposal presents a good summary of the vocal variations; König made some mistakes in 1999 and partially repeated them in 2008). If you have made other copy and paste moves like the page started at Roraiman Screech Owl (was a copy of Foothill Screech-owl; just with name change), please follow the instructions at WP:CPMV, which allows merging history. • Rabo³ • 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

IOC name changes (2)

(copied from User Rabo3's talk page, partly because he has said he is busy Snowman (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for the correction on Roramian Screech Owl. There are a couple others. I'll get them changed back. Looks like taxonomy is a bit more complicated than the copy and paste moves I began doing a week ago. I'm getting to be a little more careful as I am getting a better understanding the taxonomy.

A couple of questions on Francolins/Spurfowls......looks like someone stated moving over the genus names (some species names adopted with new genusus, some not). I ended up completing them all for consistency, although looking at the taxonomy, some of the genus names have not been adopted yet and are still in Francolinus. Care to share any info?

Lastly, Grey-breasted Partridge was also pretty confusing. The easy move was moving White-faced Hill-partidge into Grey-breasted Partridge, (move button locked, need to ask for an admin move). The difficult piece was the Grey-breasted Partridge name was shared with the Arborophila sumatrana complex which everyone is now splitting into 3 species (Sumatran, Roll's and Malaysian) no longer needing to use Grey-breasted Patridge for sumatrana complex, freeing it up for the White-faced Hill-partridge change. I've split them since everyone else has. You agree with the changes on this one?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Several users have been updating article names to IOC English names. Taxonomy change are much more complicated and all relevant information should be assessed and in particular IOC taxonomy should not be used in isolation. I think this discussion is best on the WP Bird talk page (or copied to there). Snowman (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• A new page has been made from the redirect at Snowy Plover. In view of the confusion the editor has expressed in updating taxonomy pages, I would be grateful to know if there is any evidence to treat the new page as a new species page, a new subspecies page, or to explain controversy. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • A statement was already added explaining the controversy. I added another to further clarify...Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• ... But the introduction says unequivocally that it is a species. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is this edit an error. Surely, it is the non-capitalised form for a group of birds. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My bad....Quail should have been written in smaller case. I can't correct, can you or an admin help out????....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)BTW, I'm also reverting the Quail disambig. Didn't realize there were sooo many articles attached to it. Once I get the Quail page back, I'll broaden it to Galliformes and add some things about domestication. hunting and aviculture. That should help clarify things I hope.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reverted with administrator assistance. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since the above questions are about specific taxonomic changes (not just names), I am not sure they are of general interest. Unless we change to using IOC as our taxonomic standard too, but IOC taxonomy versus English names have been discussed before (here and here, among other places) with no one being pro such a move. Replies to the specific taxonomic questions about francolins and Arborophila are on my talk page, but the general summary, relevant to the entire project and matching earlier discussions on WP:BIRD and related pages, is: If the wiki taxonomy matches the IOC taxonomy (wiki taxonomy isn't changed just because of IOC), the IOC English name is the main English name that should be used on wiki. When the taxonomy matches, you need a very good argument to have it placed on another English name than the one used by IOC (see e.g. Talk:Tasmanian Nativehen#Nomenclature). • Rabo³ • 15:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Taxonomy, but since these questions weren't on my talk page, I'll add a comment here: Snowy versus Kentish Plover is a pretty clear split (long overdue) and I can't think of any major argument for keeping them together. The delimination of Phasianidae and its subgroups, mentioned indirectly in Quail and elsewhere, is difficult and not entirely resolved. I've considered updating Phasianidae and the associated New World quail every time I've come across them, but the very large number of changes this would require has made me hesitate (if you've been to Gambia or Cameroon on a birdwatching trip, you can likely cross off this family on your list!). I certainly won't have the time for Phasianidae+associated pages until 2012 and admittedly hope these issues have been dealt with by others before that. • Rabo³ • 18:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Bird for identification (127)

• Bird 1270. File:Agapornis roseicollis -Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain-8.jpg | Rosy-faced Lovebird to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the species is correct. However, there is a rather large parrot-breeding operation on Gran Canaria, including of this species. I would not like the color tone of the head of this bird were I considering it a wild-type. I would hypothesize an escape after somebody has been fooling with selection. V. http://aviariograncanaria.jimdo.com/Steve Pryor (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that the colours on the head (and the leg ring) may suggest captive breeding for colour selection or hybridization. However, Forshaw does not mention a population on Gran Canaria. Is there a distinctive type native on Gran Canaria? Is this parrot-breeding operation for the pet trade or for conservation? Snowman (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Snow, it has nothing to do with bird conservation. Breeding imported birds to sell in the caged-bird trade.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: described as feral. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1271. File:Streptopelia decaocto -Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain -juvenile-8.jpg | Juvenile Eurasian Collared Dove to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes to species and age Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Shown on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1272. File:Charadrius nivosus -Silver Strand Training Complex, San Diego County, California, USA -eggs-8.jpg | Snowy Plover eggs to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's near impossible to be totally definitive about Charadrius eggs, even if you exclude those which are improbable on range, like Kentish Plover. Given the source, I can't see any reason to doubt the claimed ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I should have asked if there is any reason to doubt the photographer's identification going on the picture of the eggs and location. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, the eggs look OK, and it breeds in California Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Shown on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1273. File:Camaroptera brachyura -Mapungubwe National Park, Limpopo, South Africa-8.jpg | Grey-backed Camaroptera to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. I was using an old second-hand book and I was slightly puzzled by what I presume is an old synonym for the binomial. First image of this species on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1274. File:Platycercus caledonicus -Tasmania -female-8.jpg | Female Green Rosella to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Confirmed. Red wash on upper breast. There are also a lot of photos of the male in the same album, as well as the rather distinctive large-billed tasman race of Colluricincla harmonica, and the endemic tasman Anthochaera.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have uploaded to Commons the male rosellas some time ago. Can you link the two photographs that you are interested in? Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Snow, did a quick look-through. Of interest, in my estimation, these: https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5318630872811071938

Colluricincla harmonica strigata – Tasmania, Flinders I., King I. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5307499488157108578 Crappy photo of it, but it is Sericornis humilis. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5307499893328153634 Melithreptus validirostris – an adult. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5307502390478599186 Melithreptus affinis – immature. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5415118732136226914

This is a good addition for WP. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean just this one (uploaded now at File:Anthochaera paradoxa -Australia -adult.jpg), or all of them? —innotata 20:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthochaera paradoxa – adult. Steve Pryor (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Extras: Grey Shrikethrush has been uploaded some time ago and is at File:Colluricincla harmonica -Tasmania-8.jpg. I am more selective with images from Picasa Web Albums, because without semi-automated software for this photo site, it takes longer to do the upload. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do you mean you're more selective than with other websites, and than you could be? Flinfo, the description generator, can now do Picasa; you need to download the file, but all you need to type is some of the description field and categories. —innotata 22:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• A suitable file name also needs writing in. I did not know that Flinfo does Picasa Web Albums as well. I usually use flickr2commons, but is not not working at the present time. There is no equivalent for Picasa. Also, some of Sammy Sams photographs have watermarks, and it is extra work to remove the watermark. Generally, I pick the low-hanging fruit first. Snowman (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I seem to be making extra work for those that actually edit these things. I have virtually no handle on what has already been done on the wiki unless somebody actually asks me to review a species page for some reason. When I come on, I do so just to look at the bird identifications. I recognise that some of these photos have already been uploaded but I did not think to check.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Extras (as I call them) or other good photographs from the same set are usually welcome and has picked up some photographs of rare birds that I missed. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1275. File:Unidentified bird -captive-8a.jpg | Unidentified bird in captivity. Snowman (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Snow, there is still a bit of softness at the commissure, so it looks a late juvenile. Instinctively, but if someone else wants to entertain other possibilities, a juvenile Cinnyricinclus. The photographer offers no help because his birds were probably shot in some bird park in Europe somewhere and there is just a hodgepodge.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Have now had more time to look at this. I confirm the species. However, I can now sex it. It is a female. Presuming that it were a late juvenile male this bird does not demonstrate any indication of the incipient substitution of the covert feathers, and the outer primaries with the adult purple plumage, and this should be seen at this stage were it a male.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cinnyricinclus is a genus of three species. Has the identification been narrowed down to the species or to the genus? Snowman (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Snow, I had not considered that some may consider the genus as contemplating three different specific entities, as least for a while now. Yes, you are right, formerly associated (and maybe some still do) in this genus were Sharpe's Starling, and Abbott's Starling now considered more correctly associated to those Starlings, such as Kenrick's, Stuhlmann's, and Narrow-tailed Starling in genus Poeoptera. Therefore, in this case, having said Cinnyrinclus meant not only the genus, but also the species since the only left populating this genus was/is Cinnyricinclus leucogaster (Violet-backed Starling).Steve Pryor (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Violet-backed Starling moved to File:Cinnyricinclus leucogaster -captive -female-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1276. File:Mwagusi firefinch.jpg | African Firefinch. File found on Commons. To confirm identification. Some firefinches and waxbills look similar. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Will need time to look at this one. The genus does appear to be Lagonosticta. Will do a range search for the possibles, and then I have to explain the bill color to myself.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1277. File:African Firefinch (Lagonosticta rubricata).jpg | File found on Commons and shown on African Firefinch Wiki species page. To me looks like Red-billed Firefinch (Lagonosticta senegala) as described in file description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Snow, you are correct. L. senegala.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Update: Red-billed Firefinch moved to File:Lagonosticta senegala -Ethiopia -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1278. File:Circus approximans -Coolart Wetlands, Mornington Peninsula, Australia -flying.jpg | Immature Swamp Harrier to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Maias (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Caption on Wiki species page enhanced. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1279. [3] - My guess is a juvenile Olive Whistler based on the call, but I'm not really sure. JJ Harrison (talk)
  • Hi JJ. Can you give me an exact location? Obviously, I haven't the advantage of listening to the audiofile.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • here. Habitat is probably best described as wet sclerophyll. I don't have an audio recording - camera's built-in microphone isn't useful for something 25 meters away. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

JJ, I have had an initial look at it. The bill looks just too strong for P. olivacea where (for a Pachy) the bill is rather stubby. I also have difficulty in associating the reddish component around the eye to any ranging Pachy. There is also the problem of the fine ventral streaking. I will have to look further into this photo, however, I am more oriented right now to considering something immature, but not Pachy (V. 4th pic down), e.g., http://www.gardensforwildlife.dpiw.tas.gov.au/gfw.nsf/GardenStories/E0C965ABB65BC4B5CA2577430014ED55

Steve Pryor (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for photo

Do any of you have a photo of someone measuring a bird's culmen? I'd like to add it to the Beak article (which I've been working on) in place of the current picture. MeegsC | Talk 15:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Meegs, try here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=measure%20culmen

I am sure if you contact someone that they would allow you photo use.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I've left a message with one of the photographers who took several appropriate pictures... MeegsC | Talk 23:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification - returned from the archives (2)

• Bird 1249. File:Chlorophonia cyanea -Vale do Ribeira, Registro, Sao Paulo, Brazil-8.jpg | Archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_55#Birds_for_identification_(124). Blue-naped Chlorophonia. Update: This has been identified as a female on Commons. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As I recall it was already labeled as a female when I reviewed it. My opinion and reasoning is known. If someone wants to call it a female and not motivate it, then so be it, and I won't lose any sleep over it.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to List of birds of Nepal - could someone review?

See diff. A series of edits made to the page by 78.147.115.131 (talk · contribs) today. Are these edits correct/helpful? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not correct. My guess is that this user is removing anything s/he has not personally seen. We have a similar occasional vandal who hits the List of birds of New Jersey page. MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess: is he leaving in only the breeding birds of Nepal? Snowman (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to my copy of Birds of the Indian Subcontinent, which includes Nepal. For instance, for Mallard (removed) it says "breeds in small numbers in Nepal", and for Plum-headed Parakeet (removed) it says "fairly common below 500 m, frequent up to 1525 m". MeegsC | Talk 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This anon isn't squeaky clean any way; I picked up a change of "India" to "Republic of India" (seems familiar?), and "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Occupied Kashmir" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted all edits to the list - some may be correct but it is too much of a bother particularly since the edits are not aimed at being correct birdwise. The editor has a long standing record of attempting to use fauna articles to highlight political issues, sometimes using category addition and sometimes editing country names. See User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Nationalist_vandalism - if the IP whois gives you Irlam, Manchester as a location, you can definitely revert it. Shyamal (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, guys. So, what about the IP's other edits? Every one I've checked so far is adding Category:Birds of Nepal to various species articles. Are these accurate? I considered a mass revert but thought that I'd check in here first... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The category additions are based on the lists for various countries. The user's modus operandi is to start adding categories for existing countries and then to follow up on a later date with categories for non-existent countries - example Kashmir, Sindh, Baluchistan etc. Shyamal (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And now there is an Indian IP 223.189.57.217, 27.56.91.26 out to reverse the usage of "South Asia" to "Indian Subcontinent" (a term which was earlier removed by another bunch of rival editors). There is absolutely no policy here and it seems like this will continue to swing back and forth! Shyamal (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

He did a lot of edits. More than 250 in about 24 hrs. I presume these need checking. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Locked moves/Punctuation

Thanks for the input regarding taxomomy and using IOC for english names. I'll be much more careful moving forward with changes (I left Comb Duck alone, for example).....2 issues have come up. One is some of the english names can't be moved using the Move function. A red note appears stating an existing article exists. I've sent a note to WP: Move requests as I find them, unless there is a faster way to do it...

Also, I was trying to change Hawaiian Goose to Nene per IOC (IOC uses no punctuation). Also, our article uses punctuation (i.e. Nēnē), but no reference of Nene, without punctuation. Move to Nene, without punctuation?......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nene is a dab, so you can not move it there unless the goose is the primary topic. Looking at the dab, I doubt that the goose would be the primary topic. I have moved it to Nene (bird). Snowman (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The IOC says it omits diacritics, and doesn't give opinions as to whether they should be included. I haven't looked at this, but I'd expect Nēnē is better than Nene. —innotata 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@innonata. Disagree, MoS says use the common English form. So Nene I think. @Pvmoutside, several project members are admins, so you could post a move-over-redirect request here if you wished Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the rather apparent tendancy of the IOC towards simplification, and given that what the IOC is now doing, Donsker et alia, in their continuing review of all of the subspecific taxa, and knowing from him that all of that work, including nailing down and reviewing all of the ranges for all taxa, will eventually be poured into the HM 4°Ed., well, it would be extremely surprising to me to find that the diacritics are not all elided in the text HM 4° Ed. In other words, the collaboration between the HM Editors and the IOC group is such that were the diacritics destined to show up in the upcoming HM, it would be logical to expect them to already be on the IOC list.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IOC says to use diacritics as one feels appropriate: "the committee is neutral as to the wishes of authors of regional works, who should feel free to add pronunciation marks that they consider to be appropriate for their intended audience." Note that diacritics are not the same as punctuation. Also note that "Hawaiian Goose" is the "'common' English form". The article should either be called Hawaian Goose or Nēnē. Nene is arguably not even an accurate term for this species. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (128)

• Bird 1280. File:Unidentified bird -Sao Paulo, Brazil-8.jpg | Small brown bird in Brazil. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Will gladly contemplate other ideas on this one since my probable ID does not satisfy me for a couple of reasons including the tail length, and the undertail color, however, going through the range possibles and eliminating: not a Cinclodes; not any sort of Thrush that I can figure the plumage for, plus the bill would be extremely weak for a Turdidae in this locale; leaves, at least for me, Furnarius rufus, however, if that is what it is it is confusing for being one, including the rather grayish head, the longish tail, and the throat that is not conspicuously white. Having said that, I can't think of what else that it could be here.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• User Rabo3 says it is Pale-breasted Thrush (Turdus leucomelas). Snowman (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell him thanks, and that I am ashamed of myself. I should have had this one. My mistake was that I foolishly used a book that I really detest - the Souza Bird of Brazil where it shows the bird with a lighter-colored bill, heavy throat streaking and a longer tail. I should have double-checked with Clement & Hathway.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Pale-breasted Thrush moved to File:Turdus leucomelas -Sao Paulo, Brazil-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1281. File:Unidentified pigeon -Zooparque Itatiba, Sao Paulo State, Brazil-8a.jpg| Pigeon or dove in a zoo. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I got in late on this and an editor amended, but it is correctly identified now.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowman, something weird has happened here. This is now redirecting to a picture of two Magpie Geese, but I can see the (I'm assuming) original pigeon in the upload history. MeegsC | Talk 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's better. Adult Patagioenas speciosa.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I think I uploaded it with the wrong file name due to having several browser tabs open at the same time, and then someone moved the file on Commons. Fixed now. Just needs the version accidentally uploaded to the en Wiki deleting. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Scaled Pigeon moved to File:Patagioenas speciosa -Zooparque Itatiba, Sao Paulo State, Brazil -adult-8a.jpg on Commons. Not a very good picture; howver, it is the first photograph of its species on the Wiki. Shown in infobox. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cockatoo fun

I got Cockatoo scheduled to go on the mianpage on Aug 20th - and then stumbled over this recent study, a manuscript version of which is freely available at [4]. Fascinating stuff - the Palm Cockatoo is actually in the white cockatoo subfamily, and the Galah and Gang Gang are sister taxa (and the authors hint that maybe they are better in one genus rather than two). Am happy to add the study to the article. Question is, is the study robust enough to "trump" previous research and rejig the cladogram...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not until it's actually published. Right now, it's been accepted, but not published, if I'm reading the comments correctly. MeegsC | Talk 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have difficulty in believing that the Palm Cockatoo is in the white cockatoo subfamily, going on the physical differences. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

it has been published, says Molecular phylogenetics and evolution Volume 59, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 615-622....@snowman, structurally the Palm Cockatoo is very different in body shape to the Calyptorhynchus and more like the stocky white cockatoos. Anyway, I am not good on genetics so was interested in Kim van der linde and dysmorodrepanis and others have to say. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That quote you gave does not support your claim. The quote says that the Palm Cockatoo "is more like the white cockatoos", and not "is one of the white cockatoo sub-family". The Palm Cockatoo's beak is a lot different to a white cockatoo's beak. I think that the paper for publications does have some new conclusions for the article and that the cladogram in the article is out-of-date and should be removed from the article. Can you postpone the appearance of the Cockatoo article on the main page? Snowman (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I read through the salient points of the manuscript, and the argumentation does seem compelling in my opinion. Once one gets beyond the understandable perplexity that certain of these taxa, considered on gross morphology and on anatomical considerations, particularly of the bill and its mechanics, have such different phenotypic expression, is really not so astonishing considering that natural selection for the requirements of niche-occupation is well known. The study does seem serious.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Palm Cockatoo's lineage is monotypic over the last 19.3 million years (approx), and this started before the divergence of the traditional white cockatoos. I am not exactly sure where one might put the cut-off for a sub-family; perhaps before or after the divergence of the Palm Cockatoo. However, I am not convinced that the one paper should totally overturn a traditional apple-cart. How is a sub-family defined? I think that the appearance of the Cockatoo article on the main page should be postponed. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Snow, I substantially agree, indeed, I think the manuscript is still up for peer-review. Of course, we all know that when we speak of the why, the wherefore, and the when of deeming taxa of whatever level distinctively open to being associable, including subgenera, subfamilies, tribes, etc., that we are always basing on varying degrees of subjectivity (obviously one attempts to objectivize!) in our interpretations. In the last couple of decades, usually, the underpinning turns around the degree of genetic variance. However, where to draw the line is always the sticking point. When is any taxon different enough genetically to be considered something else from another closely related, and therefore needful of being classified differently? We always do these things in finality basing the judgments on accepted convention and persuasion.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the paper treats the Cockatiel as a separate monotypic linage that started about 22.2 million years ago, but treats the Palm Cockatoo diverging 19.3 million years ago as part of the white cockatoos. The two dates here have large and overlapping 95% confidence intervals, that do not look significantly different to me. In fact, the linage of the Budgie in this paper has a commencement date of 33.5 mya with a 95% confidence interval that overlaps with three of the early splits of the cockatoo group. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Locked articles/IOC changes

The following are locked, and can't get them to move to the IOC english name:

• all the Brush-turkeys at the end of the Megapodes: IOC lists them as Brushturkey
• 3 of the 4 Piping-guans, (Trinidad, Blue-throated and Black-fronted: IOC lists them as Piping Guans.
• Udzungwa Forest-partridge: IOC lists as Udzungwa Forest Partridge
• Crested Wood Partridge: IOC lists as Crested Partridge
  • note: I moved from Crested Wood-partridge to Crested Wood Partridge, and can't move again to Crested Partridge to correct
    • ALL THE ABOVE are already listed at REQUESTED MOVES.....I'll remove them if they are taken care of prior to the request being taken up....

I found another:

• Each of the Peacock-pheasants (8 species) are listed as Peacock-Pheasants by the IOC.

Hope this is helpful....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have recently changed the Forest-falcons to Forest Falcons. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Udzungwa Forest Partridge is a great example of why we SHOULD be using hyphens. Is it a forest-partridge that lives in the Udzungwa region, or is it a partridge that lives in the Udzungwa Forest? Palau Bush Warbler is another example. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Quail

I've made some minor fixes to the Quail page so it makes a little more sense. I've then re-created the Old World quail page since now it has a little more significance. Let me know what you think...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSAL TO AMEND COMMON NAME USAGE

This topic has come up in the past, but I don't think it was ever resolved. At least, not satisfactorily. There are examples where, as in the case of "Gunnison Grouse", the IOC uses a name for an endemic species that is not in agreement with the regional authority (AOU in this case). The result is that Wikipedia Project Birds looks wildly out of touch and on the road to irrelevance. Why should Wikipedia use an English name for a bird that practically no one in the English-speaking country the bird lives in uses, or has even heard of?

I STRONGLY suggest that Wikipedia Project Birds adopt the following policy: "Wikipedia ProjectBirds follows the IOC common name for a species when its name is in dispute (i.e., two or more regional authorities disagree). When not in dispute, common names follow those used by regional authorities." Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael. The question you are asking in the final sentence of the first paragraph is the exact same question that all of the various regional authorities have asked themselves throughout the course of this international initiative. Many of them, especially the AOU seems to feel that this dooms them to some sort of irrelevance, and they seem to be marking their territory. There are many, many birds that have been renamed and for which in their particular regions the existing regional groups have camped objections. The AOU is probably the most defensive in their intention to apparently obviate this initiative.

"AOU Checklist of North American Birds

The NACC invited the IOC North America subcommittee to submit proposals for change. The first proposal submitted April 2007 invited the NACC to align their guidelines for spelling and use of compound names (see 6th edition of the AOU Checklist of North American birds) with those recommended by the IOC. They rejected this proposal (see Auk 124:1472), but will review proposals on a species by species basis. This decision separates the AOU from other leading ornithological institutions and publishers (BOU,WOS,DOS,HBW,DK,ToL project etc.)."

I would suggest that your objection might be better served if broached again once the HM 4° Ed. is published, which hopefully is not too far off. As seems evident from the preceding paragraph the stance of the AOU is reactive, and not proactive. They feel apparently that they should have been the final arbiter that must pass on the final decisions for the entire initiative. They could have been proactive, and presented their case with the IOC on a bird-by-bird basis. Instead, they seem to broach no interference and with little willingness to proactively participate.

In any case, I will drop a line to Frank Gill and simply ask him why this common name has been applied to C. minimus on the IOC list.

There is an always increasing number of groups that in spite of some misgiving recognise the utility of finally having homologation of the english common names. I would imagine that the AOU might feel rather squeamish if it turned out that virtually everybody adopts the IOC indications, with the singular exception of the AOU. Steve Pryor (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a related issue. Florida Scrub-Jay, for instance, is called Florida Scrub Jay by IOC, yet it's only found in Florida, where the former spelling is used almost exclusively. Is it a scub-jay that lives in Florida, or a jay that lives in a habitat called Florida scrub? Without a hyphen, it's not apparent. Had I been on the AOU committee, I'd have joined in the rejection of that proposal, as well. I cannot understand he justification for eliminating the hyphens in bird names. Hyphens, and the cases of the letters that follow them, convey information and remove ambiguity without taking up any additional room. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)