Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 245: Line 245:


*494. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnath/4180644728/ Woodpecker] probably in Stanford, USA for identification. [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 23:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
*494. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnath/4180644728/ Woodpecker] probably in Stanford, USA for identification. [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 23:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:[[Acorn Woodpecker]] working on its larder. Already uploaded [[:File:Acorn Woodpecker with Hoard.jpg|here]] 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


== Ravens again... ==
== Ravens again... ==

Revision as of 00:09, 15 December 2009

Template:WPBird Navigation

Shortcut

Birds for identification (47)

This is certainly not a pure Red-crown. It likely has some Yellow-headed Parrot in it. I strongly suggest not using this photo. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably rename it soon as a hybrid and place in the Amazon hybrids category on commons pending further comments, where it will not be used as an example of a pure Red-crowned Amazon. It does look unusual and the unusual ones are often interesting. I wonder if there is some other explanation for the yellow feathers: Could plucked feathers have grown back a different colour? Could it be a little known variant? Snowman (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is nearly impossible that the feathers would regrow yellow as green feathers are actually black with structural elements that make them appear green. This is well-known, range-restricted species, so it is not a little know variant. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename under way to File:Amazona hybrid -Hogle Zoo-8a.jpg and now in category for Amazona hybrids. Bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is in a cloud forest in the mountains of Andes in Ecuador, so it is a Scaly-naped Amazon. Re-uploaded to File:Amazona mercenaria -Ecuador -Andes-8.jpg and first upload listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowman — this is a Tawny Eagle. The pale birds (like this one) are easier to identify! MeegsC | Talk 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I take it that that little eagle didn't kill the animal, but found it dead, maybe killed by a car? And is that a Black-backed Jackal? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The large eagle is 62 to 72 cm in length, so this size can help to gauge the size of the fox, dog, or jackal. I would think that the "fox" was an unlucky road traffic victim, partly because the wiki species article says; "The Tawny Eagle's diet is largely fresh carrion of all kinds, but it will kill small mammals up to the size of a rabbit". I do not know much about eagles. Uploaded to File:Aquila rapax -Ethiopia -with roadkill-8.jpg and shown on species page without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jerry, it is sitting on a Black-backed Jackal, and the jackal was likely roadkill. The eagle will eat just about any small vertebrate it can catch (as Snowman said, up to the size of a hare or guineafowl), as well as lots of carrion — and large numbers of invertebrates in the non-breeding season. MeegsC | Talk 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black-backed Jackal canine species added to image description on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both. My "little" was in comparison to say, the Martial Eagle, 76 to 96 cm in length, which I could almost imagine killing a jackal. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
White-bellied Go-away-bird, male (black bill). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Corythaixoides leucogaster -Ethiopia -male-8.jpg on commons and shown in gallery on species page. Snowman (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Red Wattlebird — and a very nice photo! MeegsC | Talk 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Anthochaera carunculata -Australia-8.jpg on commons and cropped version shown in gallery on species article. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
adult male Masked Trogon. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: "adult male" added to file description on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carduelinae

We have a problem here - this is currently redirecting to Rosefinch. Does anyone know if there is a Carduelinae page out there under another name? If not, I'll create a stub. SP-KP (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! (I'd be the one to know if there was one). But please read Carduelis and Rosefinch first, to get the taxonomy. (Though these pages need updating). innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect had been erroneously changed to Carpodacus; fixed it back til we have the article. As regards literature, see also under the old-new redirect target. The Arnaiz-Villena, Ruiz-del-Valle et al. sources are key, and are all available again now (fixed 2 broken links). Unfortunately, the supertree is still not freely available (grrr!), and neither the Ryan paper which is crucial for Serinus (q.v.) and the Groth papers which are also important (and none of the 3 "big" ones of the 4 are in the supertree either). Otherwise, Marten & Johnson (1986) is rather old but still it's good, I'd look at it first, it is primitive by today's standards but it gets the basic idea right. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic idea? What basic idea? This is the part of bird taxonomy–besides waterfowl, perhaps–that's most muddled. What is this "supertree" you referred to, and are all the other papers you mentioned cited at Wikipedia? I can probably get a hold of them, indirectly, and add info from them to the articles fairly soon. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (48)

definitely the blue-cheeked subspecies adscitus - not good on sexing them though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not far north enough to be in the range of the adscitus subspecies. I have looks at maps and I can not quite decide what side of the mountain range it is - the town is at quite a high altitude - but I think it is on the southern side, where the palliceps lives (or perhaps some intermediates). Looking at the illustrations in Forshaw 2006 the adscutus has a yellow front and yellow rump. I think it is the other subspecies, the palliceps, which has a white and pale yellow head, blue lower cheeks, blue front, and a blue rump. Actually, I think the wiki does not have a picture of the adscutus, if it did it would be easier to compare the two. Apparently there is variability in the appearance and there are intermediate types, but I think this is a fairly obvious palliceps and the easiest to identify out of all the commons images of this species, but I am not sure what the intermediate types look like. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed an adult Western Grebe; Clark's Grebe would have a yellower bill, and the white on the face would extend above the eye. MeegsC | Talk 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Aechmophorus occidentalis -California-8.jpg on commons. Good colours and well framed, but probably too much noise for a featured picture. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Dendrocygna viduata -two on land-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Interestingly, my copy of Kingfishers, Bee-eaters & Rollers (Fry, Fry & Harris, 1992) mentions that a few yellow-throated individuals had been found in a population in Kenya, but nothing about them appearing elsewhere. However, the lack of a black gorget (among other things) distinguishes it from all other yellow-throated possibilities. MeegsC | Talk 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Northern Goshawk, possibly of an East Asian subspecies. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one has got yellow irises and transverse strips on chest. From commons I see that a variety of forms some with orange irises and longitudinal flecks on chest. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am puzzled by the variety of the images on commons for this species. Awaiting further comments. Snowman (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Goshawk is variable species, especially in Asia. The bird in question is identical to this one save eye color: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Héja A. gentilis ranges from nearly white to nearly black. Eye color is related to age. Young birds have yellow eyes. I'd be VERY careful using images from falconers, though, as they hybridize birds frequently. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Accipiter gentilis -upper body-8a.jpg without implying corroboration. Is the image description that I have added reasonable? Snowman (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; the only thing I'd change is irises to irides. ;-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May be it looks odd to ornithologists, but I assure you I known about general anatomical jargon. We have had a discussion about this word, which is now in the BirdTalk archives. I changed irises to irides on a few articles and got a number of complaints about it from readers. Some smaller dictionaries use irises as meaning the flower or the part of the eye. So irises and irides are both correct in some books, but irises seems to be in common use. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite obviously, an American Kestrel. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Falco sparverius -Vermont Institute for Natural Science-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Male" (blue-gray wings) added to description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to identify falconer's birds, when not perfect adult examples of their species, isn't the best idea. There are many hybrids, and there is no grographic clue to go on. (This bird is not an adult.) Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that about hybrid hawks. Not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime you have birds in captivity (other than a zoo), hybrids abound. Parrots, finches, hawks, falcons...if it's a private citizen keeping them, hybrids are a real concern. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why so negative on captive breeders? Anyhow, there is a bit of a clue: the photographer's Georgian. Tomorrow I'll see if I can find out what it is, if you'd like that. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who was being negative about captive breeders? I guess I missed someone else's post. But more to the point, they can get birds from anywhere, making where they live irrelevant. I'd not waste your time. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only listed it here in case it helped the editors on the "Eurasian Sparrowhawk" page for an illustration for of Sparrowhawks in falconry. Thank you for the interest in its identification, but do not worry about it too much. I expect there will be more. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as male Pink-throated Twinspot. Only possible confusion species is Red-throated Twinspot; males of the latter species have a bright red face, throat and breast, and a grey crown. It's sure a better picture than the one currently in the article! MeegsC | Talk 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought is looked right, but I did not know what similar species there are. Image shown in the infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Goshawk

The IOC name for Accipiter gentilis is Northern Goshawk, yet the wiki entry says Goshawk.See http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-raptors.html I'd change this if I knew how, but I'd also want to bring it up here anyway. Can anyone help? Thanks! Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-raptors.html

Yeah, I can do this. Question for you all before I do - should Goshawk itself be a dab page, a redirect to this species or a redirect to Accipter? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is that it shouldn't be a redirect to Accipiter. I'd be happy with either of the other two. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was an existing dab page, I simply moved that to Goshawk. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sunbird. Since there are a dozen species of goshawk, yes, "goshawk" should redirect to Accipiter. What happens if an Australian types in "goshawk" and get send directly to the Northern Goshawk page with no link to the species s/he may be looking for? Or, perhaps even better, "goshawk" could get its own page that simply says, "Originally used for the species Accipiter gentilis, goshawk now refers to a number of large hawks of the genus Accipiter." Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there are hawks in other genera, and some non-bird things, with "goshawk" in the name. I think the present solution for goshawk, thanks to Sabine's Sunbird and SP-KP, is the best. It expands on your second suggestion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at the current goshawk page and think it's perfect. Thanks, everyone. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like it too. It mirrors sparrowhawk, as it ought to. The division is widespread in folk taxonomy. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the "Goshawk dab" (the new dab page) was left in a bit of a mess, and I have done some tidy up work and listing to the dab page, which is not perfect. After a page move its talk page was incorrectly left as a redirect, but I have fixed it now with this edit. I have added the Birdtalk banner with a NA class to the talk page, which I think is appropriate if this dab page it is to be part of the WP Birds. I have added the DAB WP project banner to the talk page as I do for all dab pages. I have also listed some more non-bird pages to the dab page. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeopteryx lithographica

Any ideas on whether the above new stub article should be merged (to Archaeopteryx, which is an FA), deleted, redirected, or tidied and expanded? Maias (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Or handballed to the Dinosaur project to deal with? Maias (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dinosaur wikiproject as such is only semi-active. A note and a query on proposed merging wouldn't hurt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected: pretty much deleted. There's nothing to it, and nobody's sure there are multiple Archaeopteryx species. Genus articles are the more common practice at prehistoric animal articles. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody does it before me or raises objections I'll do it myself. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FA article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accipitriformes

"Taxomony

Order Accipitriformes
[...]
Cathartidae"

Reeeeeally? ;-)

As you know, that's what Hackett et al. in the Science paper came up with. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I'm still heavily in merging out of convenience. See doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.11.019 and doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-20 for why the Science paper doesn't compute. Then we have doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007999 and doi:10.1002/jmor.10577+doi:10.1002/jmor.10739 which are blissfully ignorant on the matter... and never notice. Which should really not happen if the similarity is due to convergence of so distantly related lineages and not due to adaptive radiation within an order of Neoaves.

That means those detailed morphological studies should have noticed bigger differences between falcons and hawks? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge the stubs again under Falconiformes;

Which stubs? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in any case the situation viz. Cathartidae, Cariamidae and Phororhacidae (and probably some more extinct families) needs to be fixed. They are not altogether unlikely to be proto-falcons that took the secretarybird theme one step further. Might be long-branch attraction though. The issue cannot be answered until the molecular data is correlated with a cladistic analysis of the fossil record, including traditional Ciconiiformes and an "weird" seriema-like "gruiform" one can find. Throwing in a few owls, nightjars and the Oilbird and see if that confuses it is also recommended...

But until then, the traditional monophyly (plusminus NWV & seriemas etc) is supported by more diverse data. And while it is only supported by perhaps 25% of all data, the competing hypotheses are not supported by more. Non-creationist hypotheses, that is - meaning they all have to have some sister lineage; the DNA does not agree as to which.

As regards the Science paper - all radical conclusions from it have to be disregarded until it is computed anew without the weirdly-evolving sequences.

I'm bringing this up again because the things quoted from the article need sources... but I doubt one'd find any good modern source. Save for the flawed Science paper, falcons-out-NWV-in was maybe a fringe opinion some decades ago... meaning it begs a countercite. And this is the trouble here. As soon as we add sources, we'll be adding a lot. It's better to do and maintain it once, than to do it twice (at Accipitriformes and Falconiformes)...

(Also, at Falconiformes: "However, in Europe, it has become common to split the order into two..." If I'm not mistaken that was always more of an AOU thing, no?) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The SACC recognized three orders—Falconiformes, Accipitriformes, and Cathartiformes—about a year ago [1]. The NACC has Falconiformes and Cathartiformes, and there's no recent or pending proposal to split further. If the AOU had any kind of split before that, I'm sure it was decades ago.
Christidis and Boles separated Falconiformes and Accipitriformes not long before the Hackett et al. paper. It's easy to find other pre-Hackett examples of Accipitriformes at Amazon, for example, especially in popular books such as general dictionaries and encyclopedias. (I don't know what authority they're following.) I haven't noticed any particular geographical pattern. Somebody named C. Mourer-Chauviré, who's probably European, believed in Accipitriformes in the '90s. Cramp's Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Paleartic - Hawks to Bustards splits Falconiformes and Accipitriformes. The upcoming edition of Birds of Europe by Svensson and Zetterström has "Accipitriformes" in it. (Unfortunately I can't tell at Amazon whether that's split from Falconiformes or another name for it.)
My feeling, which isn't very strong, is that we should have an Accipitriformes article because there are enough sources that refer to it, but it should be stubbier than it is now until there's more solid evidence. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jerry. I really did not know what to say. I would like to put some work and add some refs for support into Accipitriformes, but it'll take some time. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution map How-to page

FYI, I've created a little tutorial for how to make those nifty species distribution maps that people sometimes add to taxoboxes: Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Enjoy. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, Kaldari! Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's a thought

What about a condor FT? Both the species are at FA already, so just needs condor at GA. I would have thought that the condor grouping could be justified, since they are so different to the other NW vultures, but I'm no expert on cathartidae taxonomy. Any views? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, although getting the family leads to a more ambitious FT...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but nothing seems to be happening with the family. Is there a sound basis for condor FT though? Although the condors are much bigger than the other NWVs they are not in the same genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same genus as each other either. Not sure how they go cladistically. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An old morphology-based source says they are unrelated, viz that California Condors are related to one vulture, and Andean Condors to another. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinaloa Crow

For some reason, Sinaloa Crow (the correct name) redirects to Sinaloan Crow, a name I've never heard of being used. Can anyone tackle this? Thanks. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sinaloa Crow" is both the IOC and the AOU name, if anyone's wondering. Of course it's inconsistent with Cuban Crow, but what do you want? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to IOC/AOU name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse

I was quite surprised in going to the Gunnison Sage-Grouse page, to see it named "Gunnison Grouse". I checked, that that is indeed the IOC name: a name used by no other authority I'm aware of and which goes against the name used by a local authority for a localized, endemic species treated by that authority only. IOC also uses Sage Grouse rather than Greater Sage-Grouse. I've been away for a few months, so 'm not sure where the IOC/naming discussion ended, but it seems that if there was ever a case for abandoning the IOC usage, this is a very clear-cut one. It's a local use issue, so it should offend no one the way a "Grey Plover" or "Red Phalarope" debate would. The first name, in particular, appears only in the IOC book. I really think these need to change. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you—I'm just not sure what I think. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I think the AOU uses the new names, though. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this before, but have you written to them? I went through my university libraries and the library of the Museum of New Zealand hunting down evidence with regards to the one bad name, and not only were they grateful but it looks like they are going to change it. They do listen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AOU uses Greater Sage-Grouse and Gunnison Sage-Grouse. There is no motion, nor has there even been that I'm aware of, in the AOU's North American checklist committee to rename the sage-grouse. See http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/pending.php Sabine's Sunbird, who are "they"? And what is the "it" they're going to change? Some antecedents would help alleviate my confusion. :-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "they" are the peeps at the IOC list and the "it" is Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae. I found (and showed) that the name they use, Red-fronted Parakeet, is no longer used at all in New Zealand, and they agreed that the name Red-crowned Parakeet would be better. Apparently there were some crossed wires with regards to many Kiwi names (and not just Kiwi names - see the massive recent changes to New Guinea names) and they are working to make endemic species fit what the people who live there use. If Sage-Grouse is what people in its range use they will listen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC names site now mentions Wikipedia and WT:BIRD on the home page ! Shyamal (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And me and Kim! Ha! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call ID

Can someone put a possible ID on this Phylloscopus from call File:OsloPhylloscopus.ogg. It was recorded in August 2008 from the hills near Oslo and all I can note is that it was quite "nondescript" and no wing bar. Shyamal (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Willow Warbler to me. Chiffchaff is less disyllabic, and the emphasis is on the second part of the call. Willow is "huitt", Chiffchaff "huitt"; both lack crown stripe and wingbars, but have a supercilium, usually clearer in Willow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim, I am quite convinced. http://www.xeno-canto.org/sounds/uploaded/VXZDHTKCBO/Willow%20Warbler%20call.mp3 Shyamal (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant to post http://ibc.lynxeds.com/sound/willow-warbler-phylloscopus-trochilus/calls-adult and http://ibc.lynxeds.com/sound/common-chiffchaff-phylloscopus-collybita/calls-autumn-variant but I lost my connection. Incidentally, I've been helping out with Horton Plains National Park, now at GAN. I know it's not exactly around the corner from you, but I wondered if there was anything you would expect in a South Asian article that's not there? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (49)

Confirmed—there's only one pink spoonbill. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shown on Roseate Spoonbill species page. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Should this Eurasian Eagle-owl photograph replace the existing infobox image that is a Featured Image on the German wikipedia? Snowman (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swings and roundabouts really. Both look pretty good to me, both are of obvious captive birds, so your call unless anyone objects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like to replace featured content without a very good reason, such as a consensus. Snowman (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 493. File:Sparrowchick.JPG. Is it possible to confirm this is an Italian Sparrow? I don't think this can be ascribed any identity, especially without any locality information. Italian Sparrows are only found in part of Italy, and over Italy south of around Rome, and along the Adriatic coast, they integrade with the Spanish Sparrow. If it can not be given an identity, it should be relabled to state that it is a Spanish, Italian, House, (or maybe Tree: can somebody check?) sparrow. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor who uploaded the photograph might be able to help. Note that photographs should have ".jpg" in lower case on the wiki and commons. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who uploaded it has made no other edits and is not registered at Wikipedia. I'm guessing the editor just started the account to upload the one image. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to identify passerine chicks unless you work with them or are very familiar with them. The photographer on the other hand might have identified them by seeing the parents - or knowing where the nest was. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader identified it an an Italian Sparrow. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the uploader may have meant a sparrow, in Italy. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acorn Woodpecker working on its larder. Already uploaded here 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ravens again...

Those clever ravens (though Brown-necked this time), sure do continue to impress with their intelligence! We should probably work this info into the generic raven article, as well as the species account. MeegsC | Talk 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the species article. I think the best thing'd be to beef up intelligence section on genus corvus page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cockatoo

...has now passed GA and Sasata really put it through the ringer. I reckon it is just about ready to go to FAC...if anyone has some comments that would be great before taking the plunge....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, FAC time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New template for swallows

Template:Hirundinidae - for comment and improvements prior to roll-out. Currently uncollapsed to make it easier to view and edit. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's worth adding the subfamilies
  • Pseudochelidoninae genus Pseudochelidon (river martins)
  • Hirundininae -all the other swallows & martins genera
Personally, I'm happy with the current structure, but just a point to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to include subfamilies. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to remove "sawwings" from the genus column. Several other groups have common names (Pseudochelidon river martins, Riparia sand martins, Delichon house martins etc) and I think for consistency it's best to leave them all out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the commons names go in; see Template:Ramphastidae. I think it is easier to scan with the common names. It does look a bit untidy with commons name, and it might be best t remove them. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a tidy up. These link to the same page Sand Martin and Pale Martin. These are redirects: Cuban Martin, Grey-breasted Martin, Galapagos Martin, Angolan Swallow, Montane Blue Swallow, and Rufous-bellied Swallow. I got the list from the family page, but it is probably out of date. Can you clarify what the IOC (or commonly used) names are? I expect some of the pages need moving. The link in the template will not become emboldened on a species page, if it is a redirect. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now rolled out - some of the pages or the template need IOC name fixes or name updates. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal House Martin

Thanks to help from Snowman and Shyamal coupled with a general lack of information about this species, this article has been written in record time, and I'm shortly going to send it to GAN as the second article in a planned Delichon Featured topic. Any copyediting, additions or other improvements gratefully received. Asian House Martin and Delichon still to do.

Incidentally, I noticed that some WP:FTs have up to 25 topics, so a largish genus or small family could be done, assuming a team effort. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A largish genus? Passer? I'm trying to get at least a little bit of improvement at each species right now, and I think I could get all but a few (e. g. Saxaul Sparrow) up to GA status over the very long run. —innotata
There's no minimum length for GA, and I've got Clements Finches and Sparrows, so that's perfectly feasible. Once I've finished with the house martins, I'll do what I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Saxaul Sparrows, though, are really badly known. I believe there is no original research on them published in English, only brief descriptions in standard references. Until some time between 1988 and 1993 (the publishment dates of my two main refs, Clement et al. (which I currently only borrow from libraries) and Summers-Smith) the only records of its voice were Ernst Hartert's description "sparrow-like" and a description in a book in Russian as "pleasingly melodious"! Others, such as the Socotra Sparrow are as badly known. Right now I'm working on House Sparrow and Chestnut Sparrow (the latter in my userspace) and adding bits to Tree Sparrow (see the new ref style there: that's what I'll be using for all the others) and I plan tackle Italian Sparrow, Spanish Sparrow, Cinnamon Sparrow, and Iago Sparrow soon, for your information. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 19:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow template

Template:Passer for comment prior to roll out. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong, but it is worth noting that few of the alt names are common, and that the order from Clement is not at all taxonomic: contrary to what Sparrow says. I think it might be better to make a Passeridae nav template instead. What do you think of that idea? This edit unsigned by innotata (Talk | Contribs) at 23:09, 11 December 2009
I do not know much about sparrows, so I will most likely be guided by what you say. Can you tidy up the species list in the "Sparrow" article so that it is suitable to be a template for the navbox? Please include the common names in the list that you would like in the template, or put them in later. Please check with the IOC list of names. Snowman (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think that it will be impossible to find a taxonomic order, so any other will do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, must we really use the stupid IOC name "Jungle Sparrow"? It is one of a good many, and they only just invented it. I think Sind Jungle Sparrow is the most common. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have written to Frank Gill suggesting that it should be restored to "Sind Sparrow" for which there is already a vote of support from Pamela C. Rasmussen. If they do agree to change it, the name should change in their next revision. Shyamal (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: Sind Sparrow is not ideal either as Sindh is the correct spelling of the region's name. The name Sind Jungle is the historic name, invented by the species's discoverer, and is the name used in all sources I use. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that suggestion has also been made. Not too sure that would go through, but at least it is not spelt Scinde (see Scinde Dawk) Shyamal (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another dumb name nobody uses: Russet Sparrow, for the Cinnamon Sparrow. Otherwise I see no differences from the article names. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 16:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plain-backed, for the Pegu. I say we keep the current names, except for the Sind Sparrow. That I'm not sure about. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we use the IOC names for the rufous sparrows and move Kenya Rufous Sparrow to Kenya Sparrow and Rufous Sparrow to Great Sparrow —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black-winged Snowfinch is Tibetan and Tibetan Snowfinch is Henri's (ach!); Chestnut-shouldered Petronia is Yellow-throated Sparrow, a very confusing name as there is also a Yellow-throated Petronia; and Père David's Snowfinch loses the accent. That's all, except that the IOC uses a rather odd generic taxonomy. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for Père David, the IOC says, "Those who adopt the list should spell and add pronunciation marks as preferred." —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the conclusion that IOC names are optional on the wiki? Snowman (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they already? Should we really follow the IOC and do all things like that shuffling on snowfinch names? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you interpret the main Bird Talk page? I think it has been decided to follow IOC names and that is what I have been doing since the vote. The voting was plagued by a series of badly written ambiguous nominations, and in some of its aspects it is not easy to judge what was decided. Perhaps it is time to have another vote. WP:CCC. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that. If so, there are a lot of names that need changing. As I've noted, the IOC names can be absolutely absurd: look at the petronias, for instance. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware the names haven't become optional. There has certainly been a slowdown in the movin (I've been on a wikibreak for a while myself since I was burnt out and had real life things to deal with). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have to switch over to every single coinage that they've brought up. It looks like a lot are highly confusing, having been used for other species. I think we should default to IOC, and make lots of changes, but the example of sparrows (or worse, I'm told with sunbirds, though I don't have the details) shows some of their names to be rather problematic. Does this merit further discussion? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, a default assumes that we do indeed switch over every usage. But we do have the ability to ignore changes we particularly despise, but only if there is widespread consensus to do so. Or we can write to them and explain why they should change them back. And since we are taking a long time to chnage the names, perhaps they will be sorted by them before we managed to change them at all! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Here's a question I can't help asking: If we are going to follow the IOC, when are we going to move (to continue to use a Passeridae example) Tree Sparrow to Eurasian Tree Sparrow? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... and Kererū should be moved to New Zealand Pigeon. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When someone gets around to doing the sparrows and pigeons respectively. We're all volunteers, remember? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what we were getting at. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what did you mean? My point was that the moves have been kind of slow lately, so if a move bothers you don't move it yet if you are writing to the IOC committee. No one is making anyone move anything - if you don't want to move something no one can make you (anymore than they can make you edit anything at all), but the articles should be moved and eventually will be. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why new users might find species page names confusing, because some have IOC names and some do not. Actually, I do not know why Tree Sparrow was not moved - as a FA it should have had high priority for a IOC name check and a move. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved Tree Sparrow to Eurasian Tree Sparrow. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request administrator to move Kererū to New Zealand Pigeon. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are sure that it is the IOC name, then you can move it yourself - look for the move tab at the top of the page. Pages can only be moved by an administrator, if the target page has some edits. For the move you are interested in the target page is a redirect with one edit only, and so you can move a page to there. If you think a page move is controversial, then bring it for discussion here first. Perhaps the talk page should explain more about IOC names and say that not every one approves of all of the IOC names. Snowman (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved it. I am not sure why you could not move it - perhaps due to a typo. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted. The talk page is usually moved automatically with the main page, but in this case the talk page was not empty. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, and associated subpages also. With regards to making the page tree sparrow a dab page, sounds good to me, but we should make sure that any articles specifically pointing to the FA Eurasian Tree Sparrow are fixed. Already done the [[WP:FA}} page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The species list at Sparrow is now workable for a Passeridae nav template. IOC names are used (though some are redirects for all but these species: Black-winged Snowfinch, due to confusion over names discussed here and at White-winged Snowfinch and Sind Sparrow, due to proposed reversion. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to note: I've retained alt names, and I suggest they be included in a Passeridae template, for Passer species for which the IOC name is certainly not the most common (except with the rufous sparrows, where there has been a split). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Passeridae for comment prior to rollout. I am not sure if the family are called true sparrows or just the genus Passer. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much: I notice the names you used for the Cinnamon & Pegu sparrow links are these, the non-IOC names. As for your question, "true sparrow" can refer to either. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The names are the same as the articles - it would be too confusing to have different names in the navbox to the article page names. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Sparrow" refer to? Snowman (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template now rolled out. If any article names are updated to IOC names, then update the navbox as well. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Is there sufficient material for Black-backed Wagtail or should it perhaps just be in White Wagtail? Shyamal (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree merge, there's one sentence of text - if the split becomes widely accepted, and/or more info is available, it can always be split again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Pigeon

I have initiated a community GA review on New Zealand Pigeon. I do not know much about this bird, so I can not fix it. It currently has sections that do not have any in-line references, so it fails GA criteria 2b. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three main contributors are Casliber (35), User:123.100.103.66 (27) Kahuroa (24) I don't recognise Kahuroa as a project member, but he/she is still active, and the isp was active up to November at least. Perhaps one of these would take it on? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isp mainly vandalism Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, while we are shunting pigeons, you may be interested in this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

swoop

I can't seem to find any article about swooping birds, is there an article on wikipedia? i think it would be a good idea to have an article that talks about swooping, and lists the birds that are known to do it.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swooping on what? Snowman (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Australian vernacular "swooping", as a transitive verb, often refers to aggressive behaviour towards humans and their domestic animals by birds, especially with regard to defence of the nest and of dependent young ("I was swooped again by that bloody magpie in the park"). Species such as Australian Magpies (see that article for more detail), Masked Lapwings, Magpie-larks and butcherbirds are well-known for it. I am not sure how you would structure an article on it, as it is part of general anti-predator behaviour when caring for young, something characteristic of many animals (think elephants, bears, crocodiles etc). Maias (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goshawk - dab outreach request

Hi all, I'm from the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project, and was hoping to find some help here. You see, one of the most-linked disambiguation pages in Wikipedia is Goshawk, currently with 121 article links. Now, I'm guessing most of these can be shunted to Accipiter, but I'd really like to have an expert review. Could someone take a look at these? Thanks, --JaGatalk 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think most will shunt to Northern Goshawk, as that page was recently moved from goshawk, and the former disambiguation page was moved there instead. We (here at the project) will work to update the links. MeegsC | Talk 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, moved a bunch. Some are links to generic goshawks though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=331711251"